Let's not forget that "meaningful choices" also means literally nothing, ironically enough. What are they trying to say with that? My choice to trade armour for a sword isn't "meaningful" in any way that I can think of. Amongst classes, there are two kinds of situation with perks.
1) A clear meta which you can't avoid picking (Empire Legionnaires and Pila, shields on most starter classes, etc)
2) Changes which mean literally nothing for gameplay and therefore aren't "meaningful" in any sense (berserker axes, peasant weapons, etc)
Either way, your choices are either meaningless, or actively harmful to you. This isn't friendly to new or casual players who want to actually explore their interests (imagine someone picking Sturgian huntsman... yikes). It doesn't benefit competitive play, as hard metas are boring and bland to watch and play. And it doesn't give people a chance to play how they want.
Conversely, a warband-like system actually lets you make meaningful choices. Giving people gold and telling them to budget a combination gives them agency in developing a build. You, as a player, can decide what handicaps you'll accept, and what strengths you want to play to. That is infinitely more meaningful than, as Younes excellently put it: "pick[ing] the perk you like the most even though you hate all of them."
The difference between Warband and Bannerlord is like this: Warband's system gave you $100 and told you to buy whatever you wanted. Bannerlord offered you a choice between a pair of socks and a turnip. I know which one seems more meaningful and fun to me.