Sure. I think we're just working on slightly different meanings of what I said, which wasn't meant in the exact way it's often rolled out as a criticism. Part

Sure. I think we're just working on slightly different meanings of what I said, which wasn't meant in the exact way it's often rolled out as a criticism. Part of the reason you do different, vague tests is the hope you'll catch some odd errors someone missed. So you are testing, vaguely and imperfectly but over a much wider area, in the hopes of finding things you can't specifically think of. Sort of like if you are planning to drive some car you recently did a bunch of work yourself to on a long trip. You've probably already tested all the things you think might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's not worth taking it for a drive for an hour around town and on the freeway to see if the unexpected happens, so you can deal with it close to home. You're testing the car, just in a vague "shake it and see what falls out" way. You are specifically testing for that, it's just not guaranteed to find any or all problems. It's still better than nothing most times.