It anchors all knowledge to the facts of reality: existence, consciousness and identity. It helps tremendously to understand science and reject subjective science. As a philosophy of life it is a little less useful but still helps me understand and appreciate work, productivity and purpose. About 25 years ago a guy at a competing company said that my problem was that “I live to work”. 25 years later I still have that problem.
Sounds like Aristotle and scholasticism. So why do I need Objectivism if I have 2000 years of Aristotle and scholasticism to draw on? It's far more developed and well though-out than Objectivism.
You were able to reject conclusions coming from Objectivism. If a conclusion is reached by Objectivist reasoning then it should be compelling to reason, at least to the reasoning faculty of an Objectivist. His reason should assent to it. But you say the conclusions can be ignored. Maybe Objectivism has little to do with reason in the first place, and more to do with sophistry, polemics or fiction-writing.