I find the arguments weak and lacking convincing power. Each has a pretty obvious gaping flaw. The author seems to depend upon RCA being executed poorly. For in

I find the arguments weak and lacking convincing power. Each has a pretty obvious gaping flaw. The author seems to depend upon RCA being executed poorly. For instance, “we take short-cuts and the investigation for the root cause is shallow.” If you begin with the assumption that all investigations are shallow and bad, well of course you’re going to conclude that RCA is bad. Title claims it’s a fallacy but all the fallacious thinking I see is in its arguments.