Please excuse the fact that I have to use general terms and vague references here.  I hope that this story is entertaining despite the removed specifics.

Before a recent release, our software allowed the user to do X.  There was a bug reported that the user shouldn't be able to do X.  We fixed the bug as part of the aforementioned release.  Then all of a sudden our users were freaking out because they could no longer do X.  We now have conflicting requirements.

  1. Don't allow user to do X
  2. User must be able to do X

We decided not to make a quick change to allow the user to do X again; we knew this would just result in a never-ending cycle of bug reports.  Instead, we concocted a workaround that uses a different configuration to allow the user to do X again.

Release notes were updated and users were informed that a known issue exists, but there is a workaround.  The documentation explicitly states that Configuration A will not allow the user to do X, per requirements.  Configuration B on the other hand will.  Configurations A and B are subtly different, and would logically seem to be the same--but they are not the same.

Despite the published workaround, this issue was still being communicated as extremely critical, causing a work stoppage.  We were then told that the workaround doesn't actually work.  Perplexed, I asked for details on what specifically failed with the workaround.  The response was something like this:

Our configuration is just like what the workaround shows.  Except instead of using Configuration B, we used Configuration A because it should have the same result.

I then had to send a note stating that the known issue document specifically states that Configuration A will not allow the user to perform X.  Hence the known issue and the workaround.