I just spent a month doing an E-Business Suite platform migration and it was very similar: follow the step-by-step instructions to apply patches and run commands. Each patch has a README file with dependent patches or commands which need to be completed first. It works mind-numbingly great until you run into the first of many circular dependencies.

That's one problem with treating the implementer as a machine to run code. The whole procedure can't be tested, so when parts are changed they can break the whole. It relies on the human in the loop to resolve the conflicts, which is not repeatable.

The other problem is the "mind-numbing" part. No-one can maintain 100% perfection all of the time. And in the context of presenting to people who don't know what it all means, I can see why mistakes would be made.

There can be multiple folks doing it in parallel and checking each other’s work, unless I’ve misunderstood?

If problems of circularity arise they can try to clarify the issue, or go back to the drawing board.

The problem is that spelling out complicated things is hard. Take the law for example - in theory we have a coherent code that specifies exactly what things are crimes and the appropriate methods of dealing with them. In practice, it takes teams of highly trained professionals and an elaborate system of courts to clarify what these laws mean in all but the most trivial cases.

Generally you need some flexibility to handle slight variations in circumstance whenever making a decision, and at times things come down to judgement calls that can not be turned into an algorithm. But bureaucracies don't like empowering their workers to make decisions, and so you get ever more conoluted instructions to shift the decision making process higher up the ladder.

Which legal theory postulates a ‘coherent code that specifies exactly what things are crimes and the appropriate methods of dealing with them’?

That is a different use of the word theory, and serves as an excellent example of why the problem of communicating complex ideas so unambiguously as to eliminate the need for interpretation is so intractable.

More concretely, I have never read or encountered anyone educated in or practicing law who supposed this could even exist.

Where did you acquire this notion?