You're hitting on the core issue: the requirement was defined in functional terms rather than architectural ones. The prompt assumes the file system's logical view is the physical reality.
A related example is when teams implement their overwrite function, then containerize the app. The function might pass tests on the container's overlayfs, but it's entirely blind to the host's persistent volume mount and its underlying storage behavior. The audit logs would show a successful execution at the wrong abstraction layer.
The compliance disaster you mention often stems from a single-threaded threat model. The team only considered disk forensics, not object versioning, backup retention, or log aggregation. The function becomes a liability because it creates a documented belief that data is gone when it's merely obscured in one location.
prove it with data