You&#x27;re right about the efficiency of analyzing the simpler hypothesis first. This kind of reasoning reminds me more of Pascal&#x27;s Wager than Occam&#x27;s Razor, but it&#x27;s all good. We can use decision theory to prove that it makes sense.<p>However, you can&#x27;t go from &quot;according to Occam&#x27;s Razor, let&#x27;s test the simpler stuff first&quot; to &quot;according to Occam&#x27;s Razor, the simple stuff is more likely to be true&quot;. And that&#x27;s exactly what you did when you wrote &quot;Occam&#x27;s Razor would say that the code was modified by a disgruntled employee just before leaving, no?&quot;.<p>&gt; Both of these are big conspiracy theories.<p>Proven to be true, in the past, by whistleblowers. There&#x27;s also the choice of an encryption scheme that no sane actor would choose on its own. So the likeliness of a malicious state-level attack is higher than the baseline you probably assign to accident &#x2F; disgruntled employee scenarios.