The micro case described below is a simplified version of a real customer scenario we have encountered repeatedly across different teams. Details are intentionally generalized, while the underlying decision dynamics are preserved.

This is not a “failed project” story. On the contrary, it is a scenario where everything initially looked reasonable.

The project started small.
The scope was limited.
There was time pressure, but it felt manageable.

And at that exact point, a small decision was made.

The Scenario

From a product perspective, the need was clear:

  • A simple internal tool
  • No external users
  • No immediate scaling expectations

Based on this, the decision was made:

“Let’s keep it simple for now; we can grow it later if needed.”

Technically, this was not a wrong decision.
What was never discussed were the assumptions behind it.

The Decision That Was Taken

  • Speed was prioritized
  • Authorization was kept minimal
  • Architectural layers were reduced

At that moment, these choices made sense.
They even helped the team deliver on time.

The problem was not the decision itself,
but the lack of clarity on whether it was temporary or permanent.

The First Breaking Point

Over time, other teams started using the product as well.
Small requests followed:

  • “Can we open this to another team?”
  • “Just one or two additional roles should be enough”
  • “Let’s slightly separate this part”

None of these felt like major changes.

But the system was no longer serving:

  • a single scenario,
  • but multiple contexts at once.

When the Decision Started Accruing Interest

The decisions that initially enabled speed began to cause friction:

  • Authorization became more complex with each change
  • Small updates started taking longer than expected
  • Phrases like “let’s not touch this” became more common

No one explicitly said, “we made a mistake.”
But everyone could feel that things were slowing down.

Where the Real Problem Emerged

The problem was not technical.
The code worked. The system was running.

The real issue was this:

The conditions under which the initial decisions would become invalid were never defined.

  • Decisions had no expiration date
  • No one explicitly said, “this no longer holds”

As the system grew, those decisions quietly became locking constraints.

Looking Back

During later evaluation, one thing became clear:

  • The initial decisions were not wrong
  • But they were never owned
  • No moment for reassessment had been defined

The team realized:

The problem was not that we started simple,
but that we never decided when to stop being simple.

What This Micro Case Shows

This story highlights a recurring pattern:

  • Big problems rarely come from big mistakes
  • They accumulate from small, reasonable, unquestioned decisions

And the most critical insight is this:

A decision is not complete unless it also defines when it should be revisited.

Closing Thoughts

Micro cases teach a simple but powerful lesson:

  • What locks products is not complexity
  • It is simplicity that is never re-evaluated

That is why the most useful reflex we have seen in practice is:

“Under what conditions will we revisit this decision?”

When this question is never asked,
even the most harmless decisions become heavy over time.