Edit: or, of course, I could be a clueless twat who hadn't read the article properly and realized the context. Sorry, mea culpa. > check, test and double check

Edit: or, of course, I could be a clueless twat who hadn't read the article properly and realized the context. Sorry, mea culpa. > check, test and double check. Clearly that's not what you want to do, because you want to assume the computer is wrong without evidence as you stated. Testing might provide some evidence. > could not provide evidence that the software was wrong. But then, how on earth could they? Well, I suppose they could "check, test and double check." Or is that unreasonable?