> I think we are, in the context of what I was responding to there. I respectfully beg to differ. At best, you've made quite gratuitous assumptions on impact t

> I think we are, in the context of what I was responding to there. I respectfully beg to differ. At best, you've made quite gratuitous assumptions on impact to workflow realignment, which assumes requirements traceability and formal verification was even a thing this team was already familiar with. Sure, some teams may already operate with constraints like that, but we're talking about this team, which may or may not conform to your standards definition; all other teams are irrelevant. > No, you're not. Unless you have produced an already catastrophically ill-designed product... The phrase ill-designed product is objectively meaningful in the context of hard requirements. Until this legal judgement, ADA compliance simply wasn't a requirement...hindsight is 20/20. Suffice it to say we know nothing of their team's competency, existing architecture, scale of product, workflow complexity, verification process, level of impact, funding availability, etc. In other words, we know absolutely nothing, so it's unsurprising that you're struggling to see where the cost is. From a risk management perspective, you've taken an optimistic hand-waving stance in the face of so many uncertainties. With the courts involved and legal mandate on the table, do you really think the game being played hasn't changed? For the sake of this web dev team, I hope you're correct.