SLA that defines unplanned maintenance very, very conservatively. For example, a place I was at did maintenance for about 8 hours weekly where users wouldn't be

SLA that defines unplanned maintenance very, very conservatively. For example, a place I was at did maintenance for about 8 hours weekly where users wouldn't be able to manage any of their stuff, but there was network access outbound possible from their resources, so it was considered "available." Somehow with hardly anyone actually doing anything with the service, it was a major part of an $800M+ acquisition and mostly for being "enterprise" ready. I will not understand how you can get away with things that demonstrably fail to work beyond the most trivial of canned demo cases and be sold like it's completely done to even more gullible companies with zero technical vetting. There's a lot of completely inconcistent definitions about what a service is sold as and what is actually delivered, and lawyers half the time only care about regulatory requirements rather than functional ones. Someone will use the ITIL definitions of service and say "it's available!" meaning that it exists in a CMDB or something and another person defines availability as "I can ping it" and doesn't care if there's an HTTP 500 error being thrown repeatedly. But gosh, if something used an insecure MongoDB server that is the reason they immediately cancel a contract (not hyperbole, saw something very similar happen).