Well I think the issue is changes compounding over time. Any engineer at the company can add a small extra feature here and there to a system where the expert

Well I think the issue is changes compounding over time. Any engineer at the company can add a small extra feature here and there to a system where the expert is gone. But the issue is when that expert was maintaining a vision over their part of the platform, and keeping all of the smaller changes in-line with proper architecture for that system (knowing why we don’t do x, etc). The expert is able to push back against features that may cause problems, or suggest better ways to solve the goal. Laying off that expert will mean the things that they were protecting in the past are no longer protected. So the newbies comes in and add some change that creates an n+1 query, which might not be a big deal. But then they change some other functionality later that makes it n^2+1. And by not understanding the system, their changes compound over time to bring major issues to the system. But small changes are fine. That’s why it takes so long for quality to suffer when you remove the experts. And you don’t always know who the experts are either, especially as company leadership. It’s not always the person with a big title. Managers may know better, depending on how technical they are.