But that isn't non destructive editing, that's reversible editing, which is not the same thing even though people seem to have become convinced that it is.
Outputting the file onto what ever media, will process the image to completion and fully render each pixels and everything you have done to it, just the same as a worked and flattened file, it is just that parametric editing, or using layers and SOs etc, allows you to delay that end point, but the end point (output) is the exact same no matter what method you have applied to the image to get you there.
I think people got caught up in the idea with parametric editing, when they also mistakenly linked it to the term non destructive editing, that they were getting something for nothing, because they could see that the original raw file is still there at the bottom of the stack of edits in LR, so wrongly concluded, that the output file was somehow being fully preserved or remained undamaged from all the edits that you had thrown at it, but it isn't, as the output file has to be fully processed which ever way you come at it. Parametric and raws embedded into SOs and layers etc, are only non destructive if you only ever want to look at the image on your own screen and even then the file still has to be rendered to create a virtual representation of the fully processed output image.
I wouldn't say all this is snake oil, because I don't think Adobe really intended it to be like that, but I think when people heard what they wanted to hear rather than what they were actually being told, I don't think they (Adobe) tried very hard to correct them, it was good for sales and as I have already pointed out in a previous post above, I did say all this two years ago, but nobody wanted to listen.
Dave