In fact, research like this https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/catching-the-corporate-conscience-a-new-model-of-systems-intentio indicates that, legally, the purpose of a system is what it does.

"corporations manifest their intentions through the systems of conduct that they adopt and operate, both in the sense that any system reveals the corporate intention and in the sense that it embodies or instantiates that intention."

"Where there are patterns of misconduct, this will often reveal the presence of a system designed to, or apt to, produce that misconduct."

@daedalus engineer here (not for this AI shit, obviously)

stuff like this is handed down from on high, trickling from C-levels, Product Managers, Project Managers, Engineering Managers, and finally landing in front of Engineers to implement. Microsoft is notorious in this style of management.

you can say "engineers are the ones who write the code so the buck stops with them," to which I say: why do you think Microsoft is so adamant about replacing them with robots? it's because engineers often push back on stuff like this and make things "difficult". it's Product that's always pushing these hare-brained schemes blindly because they want to meet OKR targets that engineers couldn't care less about.