You’re falling for the trap I’m suggesting you avoid. Stop caring about platonic ideals of what Good Code ought to be, and start focusing on how well the code solves the problems it was built to solve.

You can call that good code if you want, but my argument is to stop caring about the code’s “quality”, as a value it carries independent of the problem.

It's not platonic, my argument is empiric.

The physician - operates "via negativa". He tries to find faults with the given body, tries his best, and when can't find - he calls it "healthy".

The engineer/businessman can look at the code from an empirical point of view.

If onboarding is bad -> code is bad

If understandability is bad -> code is bad

If deployment is bad -> code is bad

And so on. As you eliminate these issues, your "code quality" increases (just like as you eliminate disease, the body becomes more healthy).

Look into say, Taiichi Ohno's Toyota Production Management - one associates "zero defect" ~= "quality". So, the term quality alludes to a continuous elimination of faults and shortcomings.

The aggregate placeholder/banner term 'code quality' stems from very firm practical sources, that can be inspected, amended and improved.

Sure, but you are in agreement with what I’m saying; good code implies specificity towards the line-by-line writing and structuring of the language (that’s what “code” is, more or less), and I argue that’s useless, as do you here by citing examples of how the code solves the larger problem in the system.