it does highlight the efficiency value of boilerplate. you only have to proof it once, really well of course. all downstream instances get the benefit of that one very good review.
boilerplate overlap is expected, no one rewrites these from scratch
though when everything lines up the same way across hundreds of reports, it gets weird...
I mean look at those reports; same pagination, same auditor showing up almost everywhere, no exceptions across all clients.. not even efficient templates should be like that
you still expect variation in scope, findings, structure, even if the base language is reused
I don't think that is an important point.
it does highlight the efficiency value of boilerplate. you only have to proof it once, really well of course. all downstream instances get the benefit of that one very good review.
boilerplate overlap is expected, no one rewrites these from scratch
though when everything lines up the same way across hundreds of reports, it gets weird...
I mean look at those reports; same pagination, same auditor showing up almost everywhere, no exceptions across all clients.. not even efficient templates should be like that
you still expect variation in scope, findings, structure, even if the base language is reused
big signal
One word is two words.