> To be honest we didn’t get this right with GOV.UK Verify. We have an opportunity and obligation to do much better this time. This is a misleading paraphrasin

> To be honest we didn’t get this right with GOV.UK Verify. We have an opportunity and obligation to do much better this time. This is a misleading paraphrasing of the article. With the full context, it becomes clear that it's specifically inclusiveness / accessibility that they're saying they didn't get right: > Inclusion is a hugely important part of our work, because anyone should be able to prove their identity to access government services, and it’s often the most vulnerable people who are at most risk of being excluded. To be honest we didn’t get this right with GOV.UK Verify. We have an opportunity and obligation to do much better this time. This means that the rest of your comment doesn't follow: > Something of an understatement. The project was red-flagged as'undeliverable' in 2019, after spending £154m The second sentence could be right or wrong, I don't know. But the first half doesn't make any sense in the (actual) context of what you're quoting. If it's understatement then that means that they got accessibility very wrong.