Technical debt has less to do with the code itself and more about the choices and compromises that emerge from the challenges within software development.1
In the realm of software development, the inception of a project is often marked by a paradoxical certainty: we know the least about the project at its beginning. This is an inherent trait, not a flaw, of the developmental process.1
The concept of refactoring sprints, while seemingly a solution, is often misguided. The root problem often lies not in the code itself, but in the processes that built that code. In cases of what might be termed “corporate technical debt,” a continuous, proactive approach to managing technical debt is more effective than sporadic refactoring sprints.1