Asymmetry of criteria

Reading an article in one of my favourite newspapers, I recently learned about "asymmetry of criteria".

In that context the author was talking about how "the populist era has shown beyond doubt that not all parties or politicians are judged in the same way." He went on to share countless examples highlighting how some politicians are measured against very different standards.

Which got me thinking, within the tech industry what does asymmetry of criteria look like? What do we judge not in the same way? What things do we measure against different standards?

A time old classic. When things go wrong blame a lack of testing/QA yet when things go right it's the super star devs who get the praise.

With reckless abandon. The senior engineer or tech lead celebrated for moving fast and breaking things whilst the junior doing the same is seen as reckless.

Where numbers matter. Management judged on numbers going in the right direction where individual contributors are judged on process improvements.

Of course there's AI. If AI made it work do we need to judge the quality of the code vs a human wrote this so we must all know exactly what it does and mitigate every known risk. Or on the flip side, let's throw out this AI nonsense because it makes mistakes and accept that human coders make mistakes.

And new tools for old. How come we tend to be more lenient with issues related to a tool we've been using for a while and have much less patience with a tool we've only started using? Anyone for a bucket of sunk cost fallacy?

Success postmortems. If sh*t hits the fan it's time for a deep dive postmortem. If stars hit the fan then mind the tumbleweed cos its onto the next piece of work. Ship, ship, oh sh*t!

Quality sucks. It's often acknowledged that quality is everyone's responsibility but whose responsibility is it when the accountability of quality lands on the testers table?

What do you think? Where have you seen examples of the asymmetry of criteria in action?