The other day I said something along the lines of, "be interested in the class, not the instance" and I meant to try to articulate a sense of metaprogramming and metaanalysis of a problem.

Y is causing Z and we should fix that. But if we stop and study the problem, we might discover that X causes the class of Y problem so we can fix the entire class, not just the instance. And perhaps W causes the class of X issue. I find my job more and more being about how far up this causality tree can I reason, how confident am I about my findings, and how far up does it make business sense to address right now, later, or ever?

is it? I really fail to see the metaphor as an F1 fan. The cars do not change that much; only the setup does, based on track and conditions. The drivers are fairly consistent through the season. Once a car is built and a pecking order is established in the season, it is pretty unrealistic to expect a team with a slower car to outcompete a team with a faster car, no matter what track it is (since the conditions affect everyone equally).

Over the last 16 years, Red Bull has won 8 times, Mercedes 7 times and Mclaren 1. Which means, regardless of the change in tracks and conditions, the winners are usually the same.

So either every other team sucks at "understanding the requirements and the technical challenges" on a clinical basis or the metaphor doesn't make a lot of sense.