I’ve run into this a lot. In my experience the “why” usually isn’t in the code or the docs—it’s in the constraints that existed at the time (latency, incidents, org structure, missing tooling).
What helped me was reconstructing the failure modes they were guarding against, not the feature intent. Once you see what they were afraid of breaking, the decisions make more sense—even if they’re obsolete now.
Readit Newsivoryweb commented on Ask HN: How do you find the "why" behind old code decisions? · Posted by u/siddhibansal9
ivoryweb commented on Ask HN: Why does SOC 2 feel so hard for early-stage startups? · Posted by u/asdxrfx
This framing resonates more than most SOC 2 discussions I’ve seen. The confusion isn’t really about controls — it’s about not knowing what order things are supposed to exist in.
What you said about everything feeling reactive once tools and auditors enter the picture really hits. It feels like people are forced to “pick a lane” before they even understand what the lanes are, so every decision compounds uncertainty instead of reducing it.
I’ve noticed that most early teams don’t lack effort or intent — they lack a clear mental model for readiness. Without that, it’s impossible to tell whether you’re preparing, over-preparing, or just creating artifacts that won’t survive contact with an audit anyway.
The hardest part seems to be that none of this is obvious upfront. You only realize what you should’ve done earlier after you’ve already paid for tools, consultants, or rewrites. By then, everything feels heavier and more expensive than it needed to be.
Genuinely curious — before SOC 2 became a deadline, what signals would have helped you realize you weren’t “ready” yet, instead of just “behind