SYSE.23:2 - Problem

The first failure assigns every evolvability quantity to an unnamed system. Evidence from one software module, prototype, team, or change occurrence is then reported as a characteristic of the product family, factory, engineering platform, Method repertoire, organization, and culture. No one can tell whether the claim concerns architecture, capability, Work performance, a joint arrangement, or causal contribution.

The second failure chooses a familiar mechanism before the claim subject is known. Mechanisms such as modularity, standard interfaces, automation, digital twins, feature flags, AI coding, continuous delivery, or reusable tests are treated as universal answers. Each can help one change family and damage another through latency, coupling, option loss, verification load, supplier dependence, configuration growth, security exposure, or maintenance burden.

The third failure describes a desired architecture as if it already obtained. A roadmap contains a configurable platform and automatic evidence reuse, so current lead-time claims are calculated from those possible-future features. The investment decision then uses benefits that only the investment could create.

The fourth failure demands open-ended improvement without a bounded horizon or stop. Candidate generation grows, but admissibility, integration, safety, cost, environmental consequences, and selection do not improve. More variants become more inventory and assurance debt.