Main idea

A real defect can be minor: a button you have to click twice. Alongside it, a missing capability can prevent a user from filing a mandatory tax declaration.

The first is a defect in the strict sense, the second isn't — and it is the second that must go first. The order of treatment follows impact, never qualification.

Why it matters

This is the safeguard of a zero bug policy. Read quickly, it turns into "every defect before every feature", and the team starts fixing irritants while a blocking need goes unanswered.

Treating something first because it is labelled a defect is replacing the trade-off with the label: exactly the error the rule set out to correct, turned around.

Nuances and limits

The converse isn't true. Indefinitely pushing back minor defects in the name of an ever more urgent feature is precisely the mechanism that builds the stockpile.

And the comparison assumes you know how to put both pains on the same scale, which isn't a given when one is regulatory and the other everyday.

Open questions

• On which scale do you compare a one-off regulatory pain with a daily usage pain?