Whenever someone in an organization proposes to add a new check, they should have to explain not just the benefit but the cost. No matter how bad a job they did

Whenever someone in an organization proposes to add a new check, they should have to explain not just the benefit but the cost. No matter how bad a job they did of analyzing it, this meta-check would at least remind everyone there had to be a cost, and send them looking for it. To me that's the most important paragraph here. That takes you from "let's make sure this never happens again" to a cost-benefit analysis. The issue is not whether or not to have checks, as much of the discussion here assumes. It's about realizing that not all checks are equivalent, and using that knowledge to get the greatest safety at the lowest cost.