I'm not sure if you understood my argument? I'm arguing that it's fine to ship a "fundamentally broken design" as long as the company makes abundantly clear tha

I'm not sure if you understood my argument? I'm arguing that it's fine to ship a "fundamentally broken design" as long as the company makes abundantly clear that such software is shipped as-is, without warranty of any kind, MIT-license-style. Ramming that kind of software through to GA without unanimous sign-off from all stakeholders (infra/ops, sec, privacy/legal, etc.) is fundamentally unacceptable under such a model. Maybe there's an argument to be made that such a model is naïve, that in practice the gatekeepers for GA will always be ignored or overruled, but I would at least prefer to think that such cases are examples of organizational dysfunction rather than a problem with the model itself, which tries to balance between giving Product the agility it needs to iterate on the product, Infra/Sec/Legal concerns that really only apply in GA, and Ops (SRE) understanding that you can't truly test anything until it's in production; the same production where GA is.