Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like it’s backward to me. The machine should be silent if everything is ok and start beeping if things are going wrong.
That was my first thought too. However, the downside of that solution is that the failure signal relies on correctness of the machine. In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate.
> In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate.
I can easily imagine software bugs that make the machine continue beeping even if the normal function doesn't work anymore.
Somehow, this sounds like an excuse for lazy design.