[gjsman-1000]

Because, if there is even one mistake; the profit losses from that mistake, could easily eat up the savings.

Imagine having to tell management your optimization to save $400K cost $100K in engineer time and caused a $700K outage where the “Add to cart” button sometimes didn’t work. Great job. You’re possibly fired.

(Edit: Due to my misreading, add a few digits to the outage cost.)

[jerf]

That's not how you do risk analysis. You're proving too much [1]; you're proving that no company should ever change any working system because something could go wrong.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much

[gjsman-1000]

I don’t care if you can justify it in an academic sense; your company’s boardroom is going to say:

- Savings $400K

- Direct expenditures $100K

- Mistake expenditures $700K

- Net loss $400K; immediate loss $800K

And that’s it. You’re fired, replaced with someone who is better at not fixing things that ain’t broken; who wouldn’t have made this mistake in the first place. And heaven help you if your code is deployed before the Nintendo Switch 2 launch (or another major launch) when you made this mistake; or if you just ruined another company’s launch and your company’s contract with them to support it. Pointing to a Wikipedia article, musing about how risk analysis should be done, isn’t going to save your skin.

[bluGill]

If mistakes cost that much you need something in place to prevent them anyway. Because I guarantee that eventually you will need some change made (tax laws change?) and you then get that same risk.