Troops no longer getting replacements

[BlueTemplar]

You've literally drew around it in your first post ??

[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.

I don't understand this attitude : just because Vic's manpower is limited, we shouldn't suggest improvements ??

[zgrssd]

You've literally drew around it in your first post ??

[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.

I don't understand this attitude : just because Vic's manpower is limited, we shouldn't suggest improvements ??

I am at a loss how this exchange makes sense to you:
You: "Then that would be the reason for the warning ?"

Me: "Who said the warning has a reason?

Half the important information is missing from the UI, but in turn we have 50% unimportant information."

You: "I don't understand this attitude : just because Vic's manpower is limited, we shouldn't suggest improvements ??"

Please explain the leap of logic.

[BlueTemplar]

The discussion abridged :

Hardradi : "I have a warning about SHQ having problems sending replacements to units."

Me : "Check that you have missing troops in militia units."

Hardradi : "Indeed that this is the case, though it confuses me why it would be a warning."

Me : "Ok, that's probably it then, the warning should indeed be reworked."

You : "The warning might be bugged."

[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.

Except I didn't. "Should" is not the same thing as "must" in this context.

[zgrssd]

The discussion abridged :

Hardradi : "I have a warning about SHQ having problems sending replacements to units."

Me : "Check that you have missing troops in militia units."

Hardradi : "Indeed that this is the case, though it confuses me why it would be a warning."

Me : "Ok, that's probably it then, the warning should indeed be reworked."

You : "The warning might be bugged."

[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.

Except I didn't. "Should" is not the same thing as "must" in this context.

Please explain how this question:

Yes, plenty of them are missing troops but as far as I know you cant directly replenish them. I think you have to raise militancy to get them to fill back out.

Then that would be the reason for the warning ?

makes sense without the assumption "every warning on the UI is important"?