People often say that a certain system project is hyped up in the early stages, but starts to fall apart later on. There is a fundamental reason for this phenomenon: we tend to only focus on whether it can run initially, while ignoring a more critical aspect—the system’s ability to maintain stability over time.

The APRO project happens to be a good case to re-examine from this perspective.

**The Pitfall of Complexity**

Any real system, once used on a large scale, will face an unavoidable problem: constantly increasing requirements, bug fixes, and an endless stream of edge cases. These changes themselves are not bad; the problem is whether the system can withstand the cumulative impact of these changes.

If each new problem can only be solved by piling on rules, the system will become increasingly bloated, and maintenance costs will skyrocket—then it’s game over. The architecture design of APRO seems to consider this point, but whether it can truly control the explosion of complexity in practice remains to be seen.

**The Test of Consistency**

During system version iterations, old rules, new parameters, and historical behaviors often coexist. To keep the system healthy in the long run, it must ensure logical consistency throughout its evolution, rather than constantly opening new holes with each update.

For projects like APRO, which emphasize structural constraints, this issue is especially severe. Because once rules are frequently broken, user trust costs will soar, and that’s very hard to reverse.

**Normalization of Exception Handling**

Another easily overlooked point: system projects are not about "occasional errors," but about daily occurrences of exceptions. How to handle these routine anomalies gracefully without collapsing the overall logic of the system is a true test of whether a project is truly mature.