> And also I would point out that there is a strong survivorship bias in Gall's law. All sustainable complex systems built up incrementally that are still aroun

> And also I would point out that there is a strong survivorship bias in Gall's law. All sustainable complex systems built up incrementally that are still around are by definition an example of success. But we don't actively see the resource cost of incrementalist dead-ends, or the limitations. I don't see this as a problem. As expressed, Gall's Law describes necessary conditions for success, not sufficient conditions. Not all evolutions of simple systems will work, but according to the law not starting with a simple system will always result in failure. There's still undoubtedly plenty to criticize, and I'm sure there's a law somewhere saying that all simple laws are wrong, but this law does express a coherent logical proposition.