There are 2 sides to air-gap.

First line of defence against water infiltration is "barrier" Same as P&S.
Second line of defence is when water penetrates the barrier, vertical channels are provided to drain the water to the perimeter weeper tile system.

Peel and stick is "barrier" only and when water gets thru it has no path to come back away from the structure, thus the eventual appearance of water in the basement.

to drain the water to the perimeter weeper tile system.

Right. Depends on drainage.

I'm with Eric, as I posted before it's cheaper and does a better job. If you like p&s keep using it, but for the life of me I can't understand why you would when there is a better product available

I went for the "defense in depth" approach by installing multiple barriers. The idea being to minimize challenges to any single barrier while also providing a means to deal with one failed barrier.

1. Top of basement slab is ~5" above the joint between the ICF wall and footing. Basement slab is resting on EPS foam and plastic vapor barrier on top of footing and ~8" gravel inside the footings. Perforated pipes installed inside the footings with penetrations to drain to daylight.

2. Peel-and-stick membrane applied to ICF foam.

3. Polyguard Lowflow over the peel-n-stick which provides mechanical protection and a drainage plane next to the waterproofing membrane. The protection mat drains to the outside footing drains which have ~2' of gravel and geotextile cloth covering the performated pipe that drains to daylight.

4. Backfilled next to basement walls with fill sand up to within ~2' of final grade. Then ~18" of native red clay to seal surface water from the sand. Then ~6" topsoil with grade sloping ~6"/10' away from basement.

One problem with peel and stick is the vertical joints of the ICF block. When you adhere the p&s to the surface the upper transition is always suspect. Care must be taken in detailing this. I have seen jobs were the ICF installer applies p&s to the grade level and then someone applies stucco to the exposure between grade and siding without any allowance for a transition over the p&s because after all most stucco products don't stick to tar. The water runs down the wall and gets into the ICF joints behind the p&s. If the ICF installer did a bang up job and glued the peel and stick to the footing as well, then the only place for the water to go is into the basement.

I can see where that might be an issue with direct applied stucco finishes. In my case, I am bricking the exterior with at least a 1" air gap between the brick and the wall. I'm also planning on an extra layer of 1/2" foil faced polyiso insulation over the ICF which would lap over the top few inches of the waterproofing.

I used a product called BTS Plus from Sto to parge the area between the siding and the Miradri 860 membrane. It adheres directly to the ICF foam. I had to use some 60 grit sandpaper to rough up the peel and stick membrane to get adhesion on the overlap.

I can't understand why you would when there is a better product available

As often happens, I don't think it is a matter of "a better product", but a different product. I have one section of retaining wall where the laborers worked 2 hours unsupervised during the backfill. That means they backfilled without compacting when the supervisors weren't looking. We've had three months of unseasonable rain and 7000 square feet of roof dumps all that water right next to the foundation. There was more than 2 feet of subsidence in that section. The earth ripped off the air barrier, dragging it down and crumpling it as it settled, but the peel and stick stayed intact due to good adhesion and the basement is still dust-dry despite 12 feet of water up against it.