DEV Community

Cover image for Observability Isn’t Understanding — Why We Still Don’t Know Our Systems
Iyanu David
Iyanu David

Posted on

Observability Isn’t Understanding — Why We Still Don’t Know Our Systems

Modern systems are more observable than ever.

We have:

  • metrics for everything

  • logs at massive scale

  • distributed tracing

  • real-time dashboards

  • alerts layered on alerts

And yet, when systems fail, teams are often surprised.

Not because the data wasn’t there —
but because visibility was mistaken for understanding.

This is the final illusion holding modern cloud systems together.

The Observability Comfort Trap

Most teams feel confident when dashboards look full.

Charts are populated.
SLOs are defined.
Alerts are firing “as expected.”

But observability often answers the wrong questions:

  • What is slow?

  • What is down?

  • What crossed a threshold?

It rarely answers:

  • Why does this system behave this way?

  • Which assumptions is it relying on right now?

  • What happens if one of those assumptions breaks?

So failures still feel mysterious — even when they’re well-instrumented.

How This Ties Back to the Earlier Failures

Across this series, a pattern keeps repeating.

Security reviews fail

because trust assumptions are implicit.

CI/CD gets compromised

because pipelines are treated as harmless.

Zero Trust initiatives collapse

because identity is verified too late.

Cloud costs spiral

because no one owns configuration as a system.

Observability doesn’t fix these — because it’s usually added after the assumptions are already baked in.

You can measure a broken trust model forever.
It won’t explain itself.

The Core Illusion: “If It’s Observable, It’s Under Control”

This belief is deeply ingrained.

If we can:

  • see it

  • graph it

  • alert on it

…then we feel in control.

But most systemic failures aren’t about missing signals.
They’re about misplaced confidence.

Observability shows symptoms.
Architecture determines behavior.

Where Observability Commonly Fails Teams
1 Metrics Without Intent

Dashboards show what is happening, but not why the system was designed that way.

When no one can explain:

  • why a service has this access

  • why a pipeline runs with these privileges

  • why a resource is public

metrics become noise, not insight.

2 Alerts That Fire After Trust Has Already Failed
Many alerts trigger:

  • after access is abused

  • after cost has accumulated

  • after lateral movement has occurred

They confirm failure — they don’t prevent it.

This mirrors every other illusion in this series:
verification happens too late.

3 Ownership Gaps Hidden by Dashboards

Dashboards feel shared.
Responsibility isn’t.

When something degrades, teams ask:

“Who owns this?”

If the answer is unclear, observability just accelerates blame — not resolution.

What High-Maturity Teams Do Differently

Teams that actually understand their systems treat observability as a supporting layer, not a foundation.

They start with:

Explicit Assumptions

Trust, access, and ownership are written down — not inferred from diagrams.

Architectural Intent

Systems are designed so their behavior makes sense before it’s measured.

Identity-Centric Signals

Logs and metrics are tied to who did what, not just what happened.

Fewer Dashboards, Stronger Models

They optimize for explainability, not coverage.

When these teams look at telemetry, it confirms what they already believe about the system — or clearly contradicts it.

That’s understanding.

The Thread That Connects the Entire Series

Every failure we’ve explored comes from the same root:

We build systems that rely on assumptions we no longer actively examine.

Observability didn’t create that problem.
But it often masks it.

It gives the impression of control while outdated trust models, unclear ownership, and fragile defaults quietly do the real work.

The Hard Closing Truth

You can’t observe your way out of a system you don’t understand.

Dashboards won’t fix broken trust.
Alerts won’t fix architectural ambiguity.
Metrics won’t fix assumptions no one remembers making.

Modern cloud systems don’t fail because we lack data.

They fail because we stopped questioning the mental models that data was supposed to support.

Closing the Series

This article concludes the series:

Modern Cloud Systems: Where Our Assumptions Break at Scale

  • Part 1: Why Modern Architectures Keep Failing Security Reviews

  • Part 2: CI/CD Isn’t Just DevOps — It’s Your Largest Attack Surface

  • Part 3: Zero Trust Isn’t About Firewalls — It’s About Identity

  • Part 4: The Hidden Cost of Cloud Misconfigurations

  • Part 5: Observability Isn’t Understanding

If there’s a single takeaway across all five:

Systems don’t fail where we lack tools.
They fail where we stop interrogating trust, intent, and ownership.

Top comments (0)