Tourette's still afflicting you, Mr.B
I used the term 'inappropriate automation' with AiM once - suggesting that a clever-devil, over-complicated, fully-automated solution wasn't always the best. For example, "Open the pod valves, Hal" is
not what you want in a tanker when some Air Refuelling Computer decides it knows better.....
Totally integrated systems aren't necessarily the best. As I once discovered when trying to reset the clock in a Merc I'd been lent. 20 minutes of non-intuitive hunting through menus - whereas in my MG Midget 50 years ago I just pressed and turned the spindle attached to the hands of the excellent Kienzle electro-mechanical car clock I'd fitted.
Engineers need Subject Matter Experts to tell them "No - that's bolleaux!" before spending €/£/$ M on some pointless geekery which is neither essential nor desirable. And which the aircrew probably don't want.
Take Selcal. As we all know, unless you've got a nice SatCom, you check in with Oceanic and ask for a Selcal check. You hear a double pulse of carrier, followed by the Selcal tones, then check that your system has registered them by whatever method is included on the flight deck. After which you advise Oceanic that you've had a positive check, then go on Selcal watch so you don't have to listen to hiss, crackle and pop for hours on end. But A Certain Designer, never having had to use the system himself, cleverly arranged for it to mute the receiver audio whenever Selcal was selected on - making it impossible to check....AR$E!!
As I asked one - "Would you trust a software-controlled fire extinguisher?"
Computer assistance is one thing, computer dominance quite another!