I couldn't resist trying to Google, and I wonder if this is the article you're referring to:
Here’s the cost justification: If you don’t run new cable and you
depend upon daisy-chained connections, trouble will arise — it’s a
question of when, not if. This is true even if you go so far as
powering the extraneous switches using a battery backup, which helps
reduce the number of network failures. Each time a failure arises, the
client’s going to suffer an outage, which means staff can’t work and
that translates to lost revenue. Then the client calls you, which
results in a service call. Maybe you power cycle a switch or two or
even replace one of the extraneous switches that’s been fried by a
lightning strike, resulting in another $75 in parts and $125 in labor.
Consider that scenario may repeat itself three of four times over four
or so years, and the client’s looking at having lost hours of staff
productivity and maybe a thousand dollars in switches and service.
In my opinion, the article isn't wrong as such, but it is badly written and unnecessarily focused on failures due to power. All the issues he alludes to are problems of management, documentation and design.
You should avoid using dasiychained switches where possible, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it in certain cases.
Running a cable all the way back may not be cost effective, (Remember, Ethernet has distance limits, and fiber will be even more expensive especially if your infrastructure isn't geared up for it) and the access layer of a network will nearly always have single points of failure. If the network is documented, then these should take minutes to diagnose.
I also don't really see his point about 'fried' switches, either. Whether the switch is daisychained or not - if it's going to go up in smoke, it's going to go up in smoke.
Finally, it's pretty rare that I see access layer switches on UPS anyway. Some people do it, and it's nice to have, but in the case of a power outage then the devices connected to it will probably not be on UPS anyway.
Ultimately, it seems that his real gripe is with networks that grow organically, with no forethought and without consultation. I agree with this completely, but it's that there is a hidden switch behind a cupboard in the first place that's the problem, not how it's connected to the rest of the network.
Just to reiterate - I'm not saying daisy-chaining is a good idea, but I do find that article very flawed in its reasoning.
Finally, your core question still makes no real sense to me.