Sure he did
He just doesn't believe your "solution" is one that is legally permissible. It opens up way too many doors into additional government control based on possibly faulty records. And puts the judge into an research/advocacy position. And once that happens, each scenario comes up.
Slippery slope dude. But even if it wasn't a slippery slope, his 1st point is still valid.
He didn't go after the "it's too tough" or "it can't be done". He may have included them as part of the descriptive process, but that's not the core.
You, on the other hand, focused on random possibly implementation details, and why it's good, and right, and of course should be done. And bitched about those lazy short-sighted programmers.
Which of course set you up for a no win, because you fell into the "shit's easy" trap. It's always easy on paper. And it's always easy for project managers who have to check off if it is done. It's f'ing insanely difficult to actually DO. Given enough time and money, OF COURSE can be done. But you don't account for the reality of the time and money as it applies to the real world, at least in THIS case. You are usually much better at it.
You're an idea rat. You pump them out. Sometimes they are great. Sometimes they suck Royal Canadian Moose Cock. This is RCMC quality.
Sorry
