As a technical choice, that's true. So the argument shouldn't be hard to win, assuming you're dealing with reasonable people, who are also answering to reasonab

As a technical choice, that's true. So the argument shouldn't be hard to win, assuming you're dealing with reasonable people, who are also answering to reasonable people. Those people (e.g. the leadership) also need to care enough about that detail to just not dismiss your argument because making the change is not a problem for them. And they need to not be so security-oriented (in a naive way) as to consider a "safer" choice always a better one regardless of whether there's a reasonable argument for it or not. That's more assumptions than it is sometimes reasonable to make. "You don’t actually need to listen to auditors" is decidedly not true for a lot of people in a lot of situations, and arguing even for technically valid or reasonable things is an endurance sport in some organizations. I mean, I even kind of want to agree with heavenlyblue's argument that you should fight that fight for the exact reason they're saying, and can see myself arguing the same thing years ago, but at least in case of some organizations, blaming people for taking skissane's stance would be disproportionate.