This is why when dealing with something that can carry 300 souls, you need to be more worried about making sure you unambiguously resolve the context in questio

This is why when dealing with something that can carry 300 souls, you need to be more worried about making sure you unambiguously resolve the context in question; even if it means you have to embed a system description as an attachment. Boeing had a conflict of interest there. They were deliberately attempting to not tip off regulators or pilots that the thing was implemented the way it was. Anyone reasonable faced with the actual set of tradeoffs made that resulted in the tooling for mass production of that particular assembly of systems would be appalled. I can't even blame anyone who worked there in good faith for not necessarily making the intuitive leap that there was something smelly in the works. When you're in the weeds, if you aren't a systems integrator, or a nutjob like me who must absolutely be able to reasonably model the thing under test in one's own head before feeling confident on signing off on something, you have to have a degree of faith in your process. I don't. Ever. That's why everyone I've met thinks I'm nuts. I replace parts of myself with models of business processes so I can reason about where highly complex systems/machines/networks of human understanding and machine interaction will break down. Even from a rank amateur's point of view, the communication failure was stark and eclipsed only by the realization that someone forced an infrastructure to mass produce the same potential miscommunication error/ constellation of communication failures as "an existential risk the business had to take" and a justified tradeoff in the race to remain competitive.