This is addressed in the second half of the article
> Strictly following Moseley and Marks’s definition, the fact that we can get the user (or the customer, or the product owner) to accept a change of requirements, implies that the removed complexity wasn’t essential in the first place.
> Strictly following Mosley and Marks’s different definition because it’s strange and I can easily poke holes in it…
Again, I’m not sure why it was necessary to “strictly follow” that bizarre definition of essential complexity, one that seems to define anything a user says as “essential”.
> Strictly following Moseley and Marks’s definition, the fact that we can get the user (or the customer, or the product owner) to accept a change of requirements, implies that the removed complexity wasn’t essential in the first place.