In that case, I don't see this as very relevant as a counter-example to my original point, though you haven't made it clear what your organization's concept of

In that case, I don't see this as very relevant as a counter-example to my original point, though you haven't made it clear what your organization's concept of severity is, and why this example counts as such. Does your definition convey any information, to the person setting the priority, that is not redundant with respect to the other information about the bug that they must necessarily take into account when making that decision? Do you call a bug that corrupts data more or less severe than a bug that crashes a program? In whichever order you put them, is the severity always necessarily in that order? >I’m rather sure that those that do make those decisions want to be able to sort the bugs I wrote by a severity. Why would they do that, if, as you say, "It’s not my call to say what is important"? In what way is this not you signalling that you suspect, provisionally, this has a severe impact, as I suggested in my previous post? I think you are being a bit inconsistent here.