"There is a persistent belief in the design systems community that code is the single source of truth. And yet, every time a designer says "this doesn't match spec," that belief performatively collapses. The request itself is proof: implementation is being measured against something that came first. If code were the source of truth, it could not be judged against anything else. It could not be incorrect. It could only be observed."
"The blueprint is not derived from the building. The building is derived from the blueprint. Authority flows from origin, not from output. That tension sits beneath every design review, every token debate, every "match spec" request. We have confused what is built with what authorizes the build - treated implementation as its own standard of correctness. That is The Implementation Fallacy."
There is a belief that code is the single source of truth, but judgments show implementations are measured against prior specifications. If code were the sole source of truth, it could not be judged or deemed incorrect; it could only be observed. Authority originates in design artifacts and specifications; the building is derived from the blueprint. Treating implementation as its own standard of correctness reverses origin and output and creates tension in reviews and token debates. This dynamic is the Implementation Fallacy. Defining a single source of truth has become operationally necessary as anyone can produce components without engineering expertise. There isn't one kind of truth.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]