OTOH, the fact that the delivered code had a bug rendering it unusable suggests whoever requested it didn't really need to use it – or they'd have discovered the bug earlier. That's vaguely suggestive the client may have paid for its inclusion for mere show, or as a favor for another entity.
I wonder: is the client which paid for the non-functional implementation, which if I understand correctly is now scheduled for deletion rather than fix, entitled to a refund?
"Implement ALL the algoirthms" sounds like a requirement drafted by somebody enamoured of the standard rather than by somebody looking at what they were actually going to use.
"Our product is compatible with all of <impressive sounding standard>" may, indeed, have been worth the money to the customer even if the value was marketing rather than technoloogy
I wonder: is the client which paid for the non-functional implementation, which if I understand correctly is now scheduled for deletion rather than fix, entitled to a refund?