I don't know if I can agree with that. Pretend that all of that has been automated - you have some dependency management system that auto-documents the version

I don't know if I can agree with that. Pretend that all of that has been automated - you have some dependency management system that auto-documents the versions of all software you are using. How do you check that all of that documentation is correct across all systems with one singular 'system'? There's the obvious - make everyone perfect and know everything they need to know for the work they do. The individual is responsible. Okay, but how do you check that all of that is functioning the way it's supposed to? It literally simply creates a copy of the original problem. There's the idea to put the onus on the individual researcher or developer for managing their specific 'part', but the problem is that their specific part is coupled with other parts they do not have a complete understanding of, and may never have a complete understanding of. It's literally uncertain whether it's possible to actually have a complete understanding. Oneself can tell oneself all they want "I know all of the things I need to know" but I think when oneself does that, oneself forgets how to know they might not know all of the things they need to know. But that might just be the insanity inside of me speaking. I know I don't know everything, even the things I think I'm supposed to know, I don't know if I know them. Because as a developer working with other developers, code changes, interpretation of code changes, there's always variation in understanding 'the model' everyone is working off of and working towards. This seems to influence things, and what if all that does is converge understanding towards self proving (e.g. reconstructing a duplicate of the original data) but it's done in a way where the simple mere fact that everyone has agreed to hold those 'models/beliefs' as strongest is what causes those beliefs to manifest externally? Is that actually provably correct? I don't think so. I just think people forget how to know the difference between what is a 'bug/feature' of the nature of knowing and thinking, and what is an error. This may be tangential to the nature of software correctness and code, but 1. we don't know how programs get used in the future unless the person doing the programming is also the only person using the program. and 2. This bug/feature nature of knowing and thinking is what allows research in things like the social sciences% to not finalize permanently into some static model that is unchanging til the end of time. You can balance both of these awarenesses but, it's not a trivial understanding. It's very, very complicated and it makes the most mundane details of life seem like sheer insanity. % referring to > The replication crisis that continues to engulf the social sciences% is largely concerned with the known problems,