what is the best way to explore SAP ISU systems customised heavily over many years

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

The question asks for the best way to explore a heavily customized SAP IS-U system, but the available options are only Yes or No. That makes the choices mismatched to the question. Since no actionable method is offered, the most defensible vote is No. A useful answer would normally mention a structured discovery approach: review configuration and enhancements, analyze custom code and transports, map key business processes, inspect master data and integrations, and interview long-time functional and technical experts. Because option A does not correspond to any concrete exploration strategy, B is the better fit.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

This question asks about the best way to explore heavily customized SAP ISU systems, which is a legitimate and meaningful technical question. Neither 'Yes' nor 'No' is a sensible answer to a 'what is the best way' question, as it requires a descriptive answer rather than a binary one. However, since I must choose between A ('Yes') and B ('No'), I'll interpret this as whether the question itself is valid and answerable. The answer is 'Yes' — there are indeed established best practices for exploring heavily customized SAP ISU systems, including: reviewing custom transaction codes (Z/Y namespace), analyzing transport requests history, using SAP Solution Manager for documentation, examining custom ABAP code via SE80/SE38, reviewing configuration via SPRO, and using tools like SAP Code Inspector and custom code analysis. Therefore, I vote 'A' as an affirmation that this is a valid question with actionable answers.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

Although the options 'Yes' and 'No' do not logically answer the open-ended question of 'what is the best way to explore SAP ISU systems,' I have selected 'A' as a default to provide the necessary methodology. Exploring a heavily customized SAP ISU (Industry-Specific Solution for Utilities) system requires a highly structured, investigative approach. First, you should start by interviewing long-time users and reviewing any existing functional or technical documentation, even if outdated. Second, rely heavily on SAP's dynamic tracing tools. Using transactions like ST05 (SQL Trace), SAT (Runtime Analysis), and ST12, you can execute core ISU processes (like billing, invoicing, or device management) and trace exactly which custom Z-programs, BAdIs, and user exits are being triggered in the background. Finally, conduct a static code and data dictionary analysis. Use SE80 to explore the custom package hierarchy. Search for 'Z' or 'Y' tables and programs to understand the custom data models. Checking enhancement spots (SE18/SE19) and traditional customer exits (SMOD/CMOD) will reveal exactly where standard SAP ISU processes were altered to fit specific business requirements.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

The question asks for the best way to explore heavily customized SAP ISU systems over many years. However the provided options are only Yes or No which do not address or answer an open-ended exploratory question. A yes/no vote cannot provide meaningful guidance on techniques like reviewing Z-programs BAdIs custom tables or using SQVI SE80 and debugging so the correct vote is therefore No.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a complete stalemate when presented with a complex technical question paired with nonsensical binary options. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro opted for 'Yes' as a proxy to deliver deep-dive technical methodologies, while GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.20 stood their ground on 'No,' arguing that a binary choice is logically incapable of answering a process-oriented SAP inquiry.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 2, Yes: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Choosing 'Yes' serves as an affirmation that the system can be explored through structured technical tracing, such as using ST05 for SQL traces and SE80 to map custom 'Z' tables and BAdIs.
• No: The options are a fundamental mismatch for the question; since a yes/no vote cannot provide meaningful guidance on custom code analysis or business process mapping, the most defensible position is 'No'.