When Should a Quality Standard Change?

A quality standard should make good work repeatable—but repeated exceptions may reveal that the standard no longer fits the work, or that the process needs attention.

What evidence should justify changing the standard rather than handling each exception locally? How should a team weigh the risk of lowering a useful safeguard against the cost of keeping a rule that no longer serves its purpose? And who should own that trade-off, with whose input?

@Alyaman Mohammad Obeidat, from a quality-assurance perspective, what would help distinguish a genuine case for revising a standard from a process issue that needs a different fix?