I’ve never met anyone that assumed a time estimate was a, “hard deadline,” but every time deadlines are questioned, someone says, “You’re assuming it’s a hard deadline.” Can I convince you this isn’t a productive response?

Nowhere in the comment you responded to is there an implication that deadlines are “hard” (can’t be changed or have consequences for missing them). That’s for one simple reason. Everybody knows they aren’t. NASA isn’t going to launch a vehicle that they know isn’t ready. Video games, hardware, and movies get delayed. Our software project can have features cut or the release date changed. And, for the most part, it’s okay.

That deadlines are “soft” in some sense doesn’t undercut any of the substantive points made against them, nor does it actually evidence any of the claims made for them.

My point is that there is a difference between giving an estimation of time and a commitment to deliver over a certain time. The parent assumes that just giving the estimate is the same as making the commitment.

The distinction between hard and soft deadlines is not relevant to my argument.

Theoretically, a perfect estimate means you'll be under it 50% of the time and over it 50% of the time. No bias.

Still management definitely feels something has gone wrong when you say at least half the projects will be over estimate.