Until about 35 years ago there existed something called the scientific method which some of you might remember. One of its requirements was that experiments must be repeatable, which meant reports always used the passive voice.
If Dr Frankenstein said he or Igor or any other named experimenter did this, that or the other then the whole process would have been invalidated. You or I attempting to replicate the experiment would not have the services of either the good doctor or his trusty assistant, making it impossible to repeat the experiment as described. Clearly there would be many times when that was wholly irrelevant but another part of the scientific method was that a report must take account of all cases, not just those where the rules appeared irrelevant.
If by contrast this, that or the other was done it would matter not by whom; the whole thing could be replicated.
Similarly, We evaluated… cannot be replicated but The system X was evaluated… can, anywhere and at any time.
There are broadly two views about that, one of which is that the old way was horribly restrictive and the new approach is vastly liberating. The other is that the old method provided a solid framework for comparison of results while the new format is at best slap-dash.
Outside academia it might be reasonable to call the scientific method an over-prescriptive diktat but outside academia it matters not. Up an ivory tower, is it more useful to set standards or to set them aside?
It’s also true that passive voice rarely and active voice frequently requires writing skills which most people simply do not have.