yes, since it was an overflow checker that caused the problem, it's a philosophical issue too.
Let's take a hypothetical:
You're flying a rocket on a one-time mission. The rocket is not reusable and there are no redundant engines or any way to abort the mission in an intact way. You then detect an overflow in your control algorithm.
In practice, it almost never makes sense to do anything to these errors. If the error was spurious, the best course was to not do anything. If it was for real, the mission will be lost anyway so it doesn't make sense to spend effort to pay attention to the error.
Your only abort criteria might be if your rocket starts venturing to a path that will cause it to fly out of its designated safety zones.
However, if you have redundancy, then doing stuff like shutting down engines starts making sense (Like on Saturn V or the Space Shuttle).
Let's take a hypothetical: You're flying a rocket on a one-time mission. The rocket is not reusable and there are no redundant engines or any way to abort the mission in an intact way. You then detect an overflow in your control algorithm.
In practice, it almost never makes sense to do anything to these errors. If the error was spurious, the best course was to not do anything. If it was for real, the mission will be lost anyway so it doesn't make sense to spend effort to pay attention to the error.
Your only abort criteria might be if your rocket starts venturing to a path that will cause it to fly out of its designated safety zones.
However, if you have redundancy, then doing stuff like shutting down engines starts making sense (Like on Saturn V or the Space Shuttle).