.png)
The Refactor That Failed
A client came to us convinced their codebase was the problem.
58 repositories. Twelve months of bugs piling up. Releases slipping. Their team was burning out.
They’d already tried to fix it. Ten engineers pulled off product work for a full refactor. Six months later, they killed it.
Big bang refactors can work — we’ve rebuilt entire systems ourselves. But for a large enterprise running core, critical systems across 58 interconnected repositories, it’s a different game. New bugs appeared faster than old ones got resolved. The team was stuck in limbo. The business lost patience.
So they came to us.
A Different Approach
We didn’t touch the source code. We pulled twelve months of Azure DevOps ticket data — bug reports, classifications, resolution notes — and ran it through our AI analysis pipeline.
No repository access. No code review. Just tickets.
Everyone expected the data to confirm bad code.
It didn’t.
What the Data Actually Said
75% of bugs were requirements problems. Not code quality. Not missing tests.
The specs were vague and contradictory, scoring 0.2–0.5 out of 1.0 for clarity. Engineers weren’t writing bad code — they were building to the wrong spec.
Suddenly the failed refactor made sense. They’d spent six months rewriting code that was never the real problem. The architecture wasn’t the bottleneck. The inputs were.
The Three Types of Technical Debt
Most teams treat all bugs the same way: something is broken, fix the code. But our analysis revealed three distinct categories that require completely different responses.
Code Debt
The traditional kind. Bad architecture, missing error handling, high complexity. The code itself is the problem.
The fix: Refactor, add tests, improve patterns.
Process Debt
Requirements are unclear. Acceptance criteria are vague. Stakeholders disagree on what “done” looks like. The code does exactly what the spec said — the spec was just wrong.
The fix: Tighter acceptance criteria. Clearer specs. Better stakeholder alignment before development starts.
Testing Debt
The code works, the spec is clear, but there aren’t enough tests to catch regressions. Bugs slip through to production because no one verified the behavior.
The fix: Add test coverage to high-risk areas. Shift bug detection earlier in the pipeline.
Why This Distinction Matters
If 75% of your bugs are requirements problems and you respond by refactoring code, you’re solving the wrong problem. You’ll spend months rewriting perfectly functional code while the real issue — unclear specs — continues to generate new bugs.
This is exactly what happened to our client. Ten engineers. Six months. And the code they rewrote was never broken in the first place.
How We Found This Without Reading Code
The key insight: you don’t need source code access to diagnose most codebase problems.
Ticket metadata alone tells you:
- Where bugs cluster — which features generate the most defects
- Why bugs happen — requirements gaps vs. code quality vs. testing gaps
- How bugs flow — are they caught in development, QA, or production?
- What keeps coming back — reopened tickets signal unresolved root causes
Our client’s ticket data showed a 51.59% production escape rate — more than half of all bugs were found by users, not engineers. The shift-left pipeline was completely inverted.
That single metric told us more about the health of their engineering process than any code review could.
The Fix
Once the team understood the root cause was requirements quality, the changes were organizational, not technical:
- Spec reviews before development starts. No ticket enters a sprint without acceptance criteria scoring above 0.7.
- Stakeholder sign-off on edge cases. The ambiguity that caused most bugs was around “what happens when X goes wrong?” — scenarios that were never discussed.
- Bug classification feedback loops. Every bug now gets tagged with a root cause category. The team tracks the ratio of requirements bugs to code bugs weekly.
The bug rate dropped — not because the code got better, but because the inputs did.
The Lesson
Before you rewrite your codebase, check if the problem is even in the code.
The answer might be sitting in your ticket data right now. Twelve months of bug reports, parsed and classified, can tell you whether you need better code or better specs.
Ten engineers. Six months. And the answer was there the whole time.
What We’re Building
This experience is why we built Bayefix — a platform that analyzes legacy systems to find where technical debt actually lives. Not just code smells and complexity scores. The real root causes: which problems are code, which are process, and what to fix first.
The platform works in three stages, each requiring progressively more data access:
- Stage 1: Process Intelligence — Analyzes ticket metadata only. No code access. Identifies bug patterns, production escape rates, and requirements quality.
- Stage 2: Architectural Intelligence — Analyzes git metadata (commit history, not code content). Identifies high-risk files, coupling, and knowledge bottlenecks.
- Stage 3: Code Intelligence — Analyzes selected high-risk files only. Generates refactoring roadmaps with specific recommendations.
Most teams are surprised by what Stage 1 reveals — before we ever look at their code.
Managing a legacy .NET codebase and thinking about a rewrite? Talk to us first. You might not need one.