Sadly in some domain it's not possible. I've had cases where to understand a particularly complex business logic case it turned out nobody had any idea how tha

Sadly in some domain it's not possible. I've had cases where to understand a particularly complex business logic case it turned out nobody had any idea how that case should be resolved. Lawyers / jurists, employees, managers, etc. We tried to go up the chain up to someone, anyone, who could explain how that case should be resolved but nobody could tell. Why? Legalese. And just like most legalese documents: there's more than one interpretation possible because the very concept of legalese (based on thousands years old tradition) is inherently flawed and open to interpretation. So, somewhere, some politicians, probably out of bikeshedding fashion, decides to vote an amendment exceedingly badly written and exceedingly complex. Then it becomes law. And law has to be followed. So that case has to be taken into account by the software but isn't (yet). Everything is all and well until that specific case appear. The day it appears all bets are of. It's not working and nobody knows why. Nobody knows what is not working and why it's not working, nor how it should work. The law is bogus and the business case cannot be resolved without contradicting with the law(s). Trying to determine this ended up with the programming team receiving a PDF with tens and tens of pages of legalese text that nobody up the chain (including lawyers) could explain to us. Probably that the politicians who voted these changes couldn't even themselves explain it. We simply couldn't make the changes. How did it end up? Someone very high up saying: "That's what should be done in this particular case" and then everybody covering its arse. And there came the technopriests: fixing the production DB...