Witnessed this and probably also done this by myself.
“When failures generate tension, demand explanation, and threaten careers, the organization selects a scapegoat rather than confront the actual causes, which might implicate recent decisions, current leadership, or systemic dysfunction. It must be plausibly proximate to the failure (a dependency, a framework, an architectural pattern), unable to defend itself (because it is old, unfashionable, or championed by people who have departed), and replaceable with something the accusers prefer. This last criterion is the essential one: the scapegoat’s destruction must clear the ground for the accuser’s alternative.”