Originally Posted by
tdracer
The flaw wasn't in the software - it acted exactly as the software requirements would have it react.
The flaw was in the software requirements. Software is tested to confirm it conforms to the requirements - not to confirm it does what the designer intended...
This, unfortunately, is a common problem with software - poorly defined requirements that result in software not behaving as we'd like.
This is somewhat independent of s/w DAL (Design Assurance Level) - even DAL A (flight critical) software can behave in unanticipated ways if the requirements are not clearly defined.
I’m sorry but you’re treating the team implementing the software as idiots.
At best as people who aren’t expected to actually understand the requirement in any context whatsoever.
People who implement software aren’t supposed to exist in a vacuum. They’re supposed to actually understand what they’re building and why.
The requirement apparently said apply nose down repetitively forever.
Nobody should ever have accepted that requirement.