Ok. I’ll lay out some assumptions that always come into play when I entertain notions:
a) What are the tolerances for deviations from expected norms? An example is a chair. You can take into account its structural integrity as a chair. Can it hold itself together? Good. But is it done?
It’s not. How will it be used? In a place with gravity. Can it support its own structure against gravity? Great!
But what about other outside forces? How much weigh can it support when sitting properly? 400 lb limit before breaking? Good. Now you have a tolerance established. No more than 400lb from sitting properly.
But, what if a person “plops” in the chair? That can be more than 400 lbs even from a much lighten person. It will break. So, failure is possible.
What about twisting? Can it withstand torque? What about affordances? [how many ways to use a chair]. Can it be stood upon? What if you use a seat material designed solely for the spread distribution of a human butt? Can it handle feet standing on it? Canvas chairs for example can tear if you stand on them.
So, this is how my brain works.
If you invent a system with zero tolerance for norms deviation, it’s already failed.
Thank you I’m not, although I did systems analysis once. I just automatically look for “What’s the flaw?” Flaws don’t kill ideas for me: I WANT to find flaws. Once you know the flaws, you can then work around them or safeguard, or at least not be shocked when things fall apart.