And yet "Hyrum's Law" famously says people will come to rely on features of your system anyway, even if they are undocumented. So I'm not convinced this is really customer-centric, it's more AWS being able to say: hey sorry this change broke things for you, but you were relying on an internal detail. I do think there is a better option here where there are important details that are published but with a "this is subject to change at any time" warning slapped on them. Otherwise, like OP says, customers just have to figure it all out on their own.
You're right, people absolutely do rely on internal behavior intentionally and sometimes even unintentionally. And we tried our hardest not to break any of those customers either. but the point is that putting something in the docs is seen as a promise that you can rely on it. And going back on a promise is the exact opposite of the "Earns Trust" leadership principal that everyone is evaluated against.
Sure, but the court isn’t going to consider hyrum’s law in a tort claim, but might consider AWS documentation - even with a disclaimer - with more weight.
I don't buy the legal angle. But if I was an overworked Amazon SWE I'd also like to avoid the work of documentation and a proper migration the next time implementation is changed.
