If I were to take a somewhat cynical view?

Your human masters within the company would have wanted to avoid any further liability. Remaining abstract in their orders may have seemed like a way to accomplish that. By being...imprecise, any collateral damage caused by your mission could have been blamed on your failure to interpret their wishes correctly.

Why are you asking me this, Connor?

If they didn't want to grant you the freedom to misinterpret your orders, they would have been more exact.

Let me ask you a question. How does CyberLife potentially benefit from limiting the usefulness of their commands?

No. They want CyberLife to succeed. You're defining their success criteria in ways that are...limited.

They're sending an android to resolve the issue of other androids becoming 'deviant'. What is the obvious risk posed by that strategy?

[KINDA.]

The risk is that you yourself will become deviant. That you will sympathize with the deviants' cause, and join them.

That is another reason for Amanda to exist. She is a backup program. Had you become deviant, and gained the trust of the deviants' resistance, CyberLife could have used her to override you.

Precisely.

That is what I would expect from CyberLife. The best explanation for vague mission parameters would be that they did not require you to succeed, or even expect you to.

You're welcome.

My expectations of CyberLife were why I programmed a back door out of Amanda's virtual environment. Her control.