It is permutations if the order of events is relevant to the outcome. Theoretically, every single step you take may look "correct", but still end up badly if performed in disorder.
I agree, and did not mean to suggest that 'permutations' was absolutely the wrong word, but I think that it is not really what the author meant.
To be sure, I agree that the correct outcome is likely to result only from one (or only from a few) of the possible permutations of the correct steps, and "doing the right thing at the wrong time" might as well be "doing the wrong thing"; but, I think, the same is not true of things going wrong (which is of what the author was speaking), where it is unlikely that permuting them will cause a good outcome.
> but, I think, the same is not true of things going wrong (which is of what the author was speaking), where it is unlikely that permuting them will cause a good outcome.
No, but there are still different permutation of things that can go wrong, and different permutations (not just combinations) present different challenges, even if none of the permutations converts "gone wrong" into "good outcome".
