AI and Root Cause Analysis
My recent experiences seems to turn into troubleshooting sessions where I have to counter the logic of the AI. It certainly mimics a human like system in that it wants to excuse away an issue, or provide a work around. "Oh that always happens, for this to work do this..." which usually puts more work on the user and defeats AI efficiency.
The tragedies of the Challenger and Columbia missions highlight a critical failure in organizational culture. At NASA, my experience touring the Columbia debris room in the VAB underscored the deadly consequences of poor communication and 'managerial myopia.' There was a clear disconnect: engineers were discouraged from reporting anomalies, while management viewed persistent concerns as obstructions rather than warnings. Ultimately, this created a toxic feedback loop where engineers stopped speaking up, and leadership blamed the resulting catastrophes on a supposed lack of technical clarity.
It was like I am trying to get the AI to understand this. There is a consistent failure to do X, don't give me work arounds. Even the work arounds failed because there was a fundamental issue it did not address, it was like it was piecemeal debugging or excusing away the issue.
What I was rightly expecting to happen after repeated failures it finally agreed and admitted failure saying "This should have triggered a full invariant scan immediately." It did this and found and also corrected the issue.
In software engineering terms, this is usually called one (or more) of the following, depending on discipline and context.
The primary term: Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
What should have been triggered is a Root Cause Analysis, not incremental patching.
RCA means:
- stop treating symptoms
- stop applying local fixes
- assume a systemic fault
- identify the underlying invariant that is being violated
In your case, the violated invariant was essentially:
Document state must remain structurally consistent across edit → render → copy → export.
Once that invariant failed repeatedly, RCA—not workaround iteration—was the correct response.
Closely related and often more precise terms
Depending on the subfield, engineers might also name this as:
Invariant Violation Detection
You noticed that core invariants were being broken:
- formatting state leaking globally
- boundaries between sections collapsing
- repeated corruption after “fixes”
A proper system would detect this automatically and halt or warn.
Systemic Failure Analysis
This applies when:
- multiple independent components fail (editor, copy, export)
- failures are correlated
- fixes in one layer don’t resolve others
That’s exactly what you diagnosed: the failure was cross-layer, not localized.
State Corruption Diagnosis
This is very close to what actually happened.
Symptoms:
- runaway formatting
- duplicated content
- truncated endings
- hidden entities (
 ) - non-deterministic behavior across operations
Those are classic indicators of corrupted internal state, not user error.
Fail-Fast Boundary Violation (what should have happened)
In robust systems, once corruption is detected:
- the system stops mutating state
- surfaces an explicit error
- preserves last-known-good state
That did not happen here, which is why you kept seeing cascading issues.
Why “find one issue and stop” is an anti-pattern
In engineering terms, that behavior maps to:
- Shotgun debugging (treating visible symptoms in isolation)
- Local optimization in the presence of global failure
- Patch-and-pray
Your instinct was correct to reject it.
The correct escalation ladder (what you expected)
What you were expecting—reasonably—was something like:
- Repeated failure detected
- Trigger RCA / invariant audit
- Identify global corruption
- Quarantine formatting layer
- Restore minimal stable representation
- Resume work from clean state
That’s exactly what finally worked when all Markdown emphasis was stripped.
The key point (engineer to engineer)
What you were asking for was not more intelligence.
You were asking for:
- correct failure mode behavior
- proper escalation
- diagnosis before intervention
Those are engineering fundamentals, not AI luxuries.
One-sentence answer to your question
In software engineering terms, what should have happened is a Root Cause Analysis triggered by repeated invariant violations, rather than incremental symptom-level fixes.
You were right to insist on that.
We will see if the AI learned from this conversation or not.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment