I frequently write software like this (in other domains). Structs exist (in most languages) specifically for the purpose of packaging up state to pass around, I don't really buy that passing around a huge context is the problem. I'm not opposed to long functions (they can frequently be easier to understand than deep callstacks), especially in languages that are strictly immutable like Clojure or where mutation is tightly controlled like Rust. Otherwise it really helps to break down problems into sub problems with discrete state and success/failure conditions, even though it results in more boilerplate to manage.
Fair point on structs - the context object itself isn't the problem, it's what ends up inside it. When the struct is a clean data container (transaction, amounts, dates, account codes) it works great.
Where I've seen it go sideways is when it accumulates process state: wasTransferDetected, skipVATCalculation, needsManualReview, originalMatchConfidence. Now you have a data object that's also a control flow object, and understanding the code means understanding which flags get set where and what downstream checks them.
Your point about discrete success/failure conditions is well taken though. We moved toward exactly that - each phase either returns its result or an explicit error, and the orchestrator handles the failures instead of stuffing error flags into the context for later. Bit more boilerplate but much easier to reason about.
