We keep reading how Collins submarine computerization was running late in the ea

Question:if so, possibly for very sensible reasons. But how do we know it was running late at all ? How do we know this wasn't disinformation ?
Could even be disinformation by an insider.
A new "project rescuer in chief" position is to be created. In order to secure funds for the position, the existing project has to be seen as running late.
What if someone accepted that the project was running late, and decided to change course, to try and catch up ? Wouldn't that effectively void the original contract, because they "agreed to a variation in a schedule" ?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: if so, possibly for very sensible reasons. But how do we know it was running late at all ? How do we know this wasn't disinformation ?
Could even be disinformation by an insider.
A new "project rescuer in chief" position is to be created. In order to secure funds for the position, the existing project has to be seen as running late.
What if someone accepted that the project was running late, and decided to change course, to try and catch up ? Wouldn't that effectively void the original contract, because they "agreed to a variation in a schedule" ?

Some people underestimate the efficiency of the Collins submarine computerisation. It is is a very efficient one.
I think you are right about the "disinformation by an insider".
To obtain more money they have to manipulate the situation to their advantage.
Contracts are only valid if both parties agree unconditionally; as soon as you start to doubt the other party, you brake the contract.
Another contract is made until another better contract voids the first.
I like variations.