I think we could talk about how much to trust internally generated assessments of how successful an ambitious engineering project will be. Projects have been badly designed by well meaning engineers before.
That said, I wasn't trying to say that the problem was technical in nature. It's that a sound technical design (and competent construction of that design) is only one part in a much larger problem set. A solution that the people who are paying for it don't want (for whatever reason) is unlikely to succeed. The Wikipedia article for MOSE (the Venice anti-flood system) lists many lawsuits worried that it's insufficient, will damage the environment, etc[1].
To me, this suggests that it may harm projects to leave it at "the engineering is fine." The engineering may actually be more flexible than other constraints. It's possible that the optimal design for a perfectly supportive environment may be less well suited for the world that exists.
That said, I wasn't trying to say that the problem was technical in nature. It's that a sound technical design (and competent construction of that design) is only one part in a much larger problem set. A solution that the people who are paying for it don't want (for whatever reason) is unlikely to succeed. The Wikipedia article for MOSE (the Venice anti-flood system) lists many lawsuits worried that it's insufficient, will damage the environment, etc[1].
To me, this suggests that it may harm projects to leave it at "the engineering is fine." The engineering may actually be more flexible than other constraints. It's possible that the optimal design for a perfectly supportive environment may be less well suited for the world that exists.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project#Criticism,_corrup...