Medium that reveals flaws

(more verbosely, something like "medium that reveals that flaws of the content produced in it")

Examples:

• A table makes it obvious when one of its cells is missing information. Once you specify the column names and instances (rows), that automatically gives a spot for n*m cells which must be filled. If the same information is presented as an essay or new reporting, it is not so obvious which pieces of info are missing.
• Jonathan Blow makes the point that a video game designer must create a system with consistent laws/mechanics, whereas a novelist does not need to do so.
• "Do the math, then burn the math and go with your gut": writing down actual calculations and probabilities and so forth enforces consistency and a crisp model in a way that just using verbal reasoning + intuition doesn't.
• Redlinks on a MediaWiki wiki makes the divergence between intent and execution obvious, in a way that "just don't link to it if the page doesn't exist" (the default on the web) doesn't.
• Empty sections similarly make intent vs execution obvious.

Non-examples:

• Uncertainty fetish that Vipul complained about.

???:

• "future work" section
• "citation needed" on Wikipedia
• TODO/FIXME

I think one difference between me and most people is that I am much more likely to choose media that reveal flaws, to expose the limits of my knowledge.

How do we classify something as an example or non-example? some things to pay attention to: whether the thing is structural/a medium, rather than just a particular way to use an existing medium? whether there are other (e.g. social signaling) explanations for the behavior