Let me try to rephrase to tell you what I meant with that sentence, which I was attempting to phrase delicately. The reason why a line manager might not immedi

Let me try to rephrase to tell you what I meant with that sentence, which I was attempting to phrase delicately. The reason why a line manager might not immediately say "It is probably true that someone claiming we addressed a letter to his deceased daughter means that we actually in fact addressed a letter to his deceased daughter" is because that line manager has to deal with many calls every month from people who are mentally disturbed. For example, I was once accused by a customer of being a CIA operative who hated Muslims because his pencils were late. His pencils had arrived on time. Skepticism about the father's claim was a mistake, but it's not an inconceivable mistake to me. After anyone at OfficeMax had realized that the allegation was true, my ideal state of the world is that the CEO is on the phone within 5 minutes. This is getting conflated with two other issues: "Did OfficeMax actually intend to send this letter?" No. Of course not. "Does OfficeMax having created a system which allows this letter to get sent mean that OfficeMax should fix the system?" Yes, OfficeMax should identify and fix the bug which allowed this to happen. In contrast to many people, I believe that the type of bug which caused this is likely rather minor. I would not agree that e.g. this letter is by itself a persuasive case that direct mail is evil, for example.