Why place them on opposite ends of a spectrum (low failure vs high failure costs)? (Curious not saying it's incorrect). At my company we do both and get very d

Why place them on opposite ends of a spectrum (low failure vs high failure costs)? (Curious not saying it's incorrect). At my company we do both and get very different value from them. Automated testing is great (reproducible, handles regressions automatically, can run all the time) but it's not intelligent. It can't think of things that you forgot to test, or identify dependencies between components you thought were unrelated. You can argue that you should have written better tests, but how do you learn that? In our case... Manual testing! On the other hand, your manual QA person can't test all things at all times, and they definitely won't test the same thing over and over and over forever without finding a new gig! So ideally you take their input to learn not just how to test a particular component better (and fix specific bugs) but how to generally write better tests, so that next time their usual "tricks" won't work.