[tpoacher]

Good, but I would have preferred a comment about 'process gates' somewhere in there [0]. I.e. rather than say "it's probably nothing let's not do anything" only to avoid the extreme "let's double check everything from now on for all eternity", I would have preferred a "Let's add this temporary process to check if something is actually wrong, but make sure it has a clear review time and a clear path to being removed, so that the double-checking doesn't become eternal without obvious benefit".

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33229338

[Aeolun]

Nothing more permanent than a temporary process.

When you have zero incidents using the temporary process people will automatically start to assume it’s due to the temporary process, and nobody will want to take responsibility for taking it out.

[tpoacher]

I agree with the implication, but don't think this applies here. The scenario here is a safety net, i.e. something that visibly "catches" errors, at a cost. If you have zero incidents "caught" during the evaluation period, then the evaluation result is that the cost isn't worth paying.

Obviously if you're planning to implement a vague deterrent-style solution which you have no means (or intent) of evaluating just to check a box, you're better off not doing it.

[TylerE]

The infamous lion-repeling rock in action.