When a service fails, systemctl status shows it as failed along with the exit status of its main process. The useful question is not "why did it fail" but "did my program ever run", because the answer decides whether the explanation is in the unit file or in the program's own output.
systemd answers that for you. Its documentation explains that when the service manager fails to apply a unit's execution settings, the process exits with a non-zero code "before the configured command line is executed" — after systemd has created the process, but before it hands over to your binary. These failures use exit codes systemd defines itself: 200 EXIT_CHDIR when changing to the working directory failed, 203 EXIT_EXEC when executing the program failed, 217 EXIT_USER when the user could not be set up. Seeing one of those means your program never started, so its logs are empty for a reason.
203 is the one people meet most. The documentation describes it as the execve call failing and says it is "most likely" caused by "a missing or non-accessible executable file" — a typo in ExecStart, a bare program name that is not in systemd's fixed search path, where an absolute path is needed, a script without its execute bit, or a binary installed somewhere other than where the unit says.
Any other exit status is your program's own: it started, did something, and exited. systemd is only the messenger here, and the reason is whatever the program printed, which the journal captured.
There is a third state that looks like a failure to start and is really systemd protecting the machine. A unit configured to restart that keeps crashing will be restarted until it exceeds a rate limit, after which, in the words of the manual, it is "not permitted to start any more". From then on, starting it by hand is refused until StartLimitIntervalSec has passed (10 seconds by default) or the counter is flushed with systemctl reset-failed — so the visible symptom is a service that refuses to start, while the cause is the crash loop that came before.