If you step back for a moment and think about other fields like writing a book, it stands to reason that no matter how good your editor and electronic spelling/

If you step back for a moment and think about other fields like writing a book, it stands to reason that no matter how good your editor and electronic spelling/grammar checking tools are, the longer the book, the more likely there are to be spelling/grammar errors. Like these studies, I'm sure there are a bunch of other metrics/factors you could pull out to correlate with errors, but it makes sense that as the document gets much longer, it's a lot harder to be so thorough with checking. I do agree that the more mature a thing is, the more likely it is to be correct. This seems like a corollary to the Lindy effect [0]. As something matures and stays in use, it's likely that the problems with it are being found and fixed, otherwise it would die/disappear from disuse due to the issues. With the book example, each time there's a new edition, there's a chance for errors to be fixed. Depending on the behind the scenes process of updating the text, new problems could be introduced, but in general, you'd expect the total errors to trend down over time. As a caveat to all this, I've often remarked that no matter how many times I review and revise my résumé over the years, I keep finding typos. So who knows... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect There