> All the "do-nothing scripts" diverges from the reality as time goes by. Not sure I follow. In my experience, we have _tons_ of process that's written up in r

> All the "do-nothing scripts" diverges from the reality as time goes by. Not sure I follow. In my experience, we have _tons_ of process that's written up in random pages in our company wiki. I assure you, nothing diverges as quickly as a set (regrettably) of duplicated wiki pages outlining a process. If you're making the argument that a fully automated script is superior to a checklist, then ... well, sure. But while you're spending the resources to fully automate one process, duplicated wiki pages are being written for the 100 other checklists (at least in my experience). The key here is that I fully agree with you on the divergence problem. But if a scripted checklist diverges, people complain and it's trivial to update the script. If you don't have these, then people either add a comment to one of the wiki pages, or a side note, or worse, write up a "better" wiki page with the real actual this-time-for-sure steps. I believe the key here is to implement a consistent tactical approach to incremental development, capturing divergence along the way. If you just let them lie fallow, then yes, that's bad. But surely a fully-automated script allowed to lie fallow and diverge from reality is no better off.