IIRC, the conclusion was that this isn't any more likely to fail than any other part of the GCS so there was nothing gained by specifically asserting these. I want to say that the old style (like done on L99 in this file) required the Q_ASSERT because there was no compile-time check for the UAVO. Thus it was possible to have the manager fail because of a UAVO name change, whereas with the new approach a name change triggers a compile-time failure.

Anyway, maybe one of the other devs can shed some light on the situation. I know that throughout our code we're not using the Q_ASSERTs systematically, which is fine by me since it cleans up cruft.