I'm with Juraj here. There is plenty of times I also use triplanar to skip having to think about uvw mapping on bad or complex geometry.
On the other hand it might not be the intended use case from the side of the Corona Team?
One use case I remember helped me a lot was when I made a certain building with Railclone, and didn't quite manage to get the bricks on all parts of the object to match up the way I wanted. So I ended up using triplanar mapping in world space to make sure it matched, bypassing having to fiddle with Railclone to maybe make it work.
And what about if you have a terrain, it might be displaced or it might be pure geo, and we want to make a complex material that blends several materials on the surface(could just be one material really). We will in high likelihood use some Quixel materials, and they all come with displacement. But we have to stick to the normal/bump maps, because the displacement will not match the rest? I guess we could just slap a uvw modifier on it, but this wouldn't have blending between the axis, so we would maybe get some visible seams based on how heavy we want to displace it.
I feel like our business ain't the "cleanest" when it comes to what geometry we need to use, or what we're sent, so the triplanar with blending helps hide a lot of these problems.
I might be in the wrong and there's other ways of doing this, but for me, triplanar has always been the fix-it-all node for the lazy :)