Large software products often operate in a state of confusion, even within the companies that create them. Simple questions about user access or feature availability frequently stump even the engineers who built the systems. This lack of clarity stems from the immense complexity of software, where adding features can lead to unforeseen complications that affect other parts of the system. For example, a feature that supports localization or compliance with specific regulations becomes intertwined with many other features, making it difficult for anyone to maintain a clear understanding of the overall functionality. Documentation is supposed to be the solution, but it’s challenging to keep up with rapidly changing systems. As software evolves, the effort to document interactions often lags behind, leading to incomplete or outdated information. Many behaviors of the software arise from default settings rather than intentional design choices, complicating the documentation process further. Consequently, the most reliable way to answer questions about software capabilities is to look at the code itself. Engineers, who work directly with the code, hold the most accurate knowledge about its functionality. The disconnect between writing code and explaining it contributes to this problem. Many engineers can code efficiently but struggle to articulate how the system works. This communication gap may stem from a lack of confidence or the fear of being wrong when answering questions. As teams reorganize, the loss of tacit knowledge can further hinder understanding, forcing engineers to investigate rather than answer questions directly. This creates a cycle where clarity about the software's functions becomes even more elusive.