> IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contrac

> IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract. Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. It wasn't the computer. It was execution of the contract and which side of the contract performed poorly in that execution. It's not as reductive as that's what the computer said.