FWIW, I have seen that same model have some success, provided management is willing to stand-up for QA. When QA isn't actively writing tests, they can still pro

FWIW, I have seen that same model have some success, provided management is willing to stand-up for QA. When QA isn't actively writing tests, they can still provide some balance against human biases that tend toward following the easiest path. In these cases, QA provides an objective viewpoint and backstop to cost and schedule pressures that might lead to bad decisions. This might be most valuable on safety-critical code, but I suppose it can still apply at various levels of risk. I've seen where this has went poorly as QA was slowly eroded. It became easier and easier to justify shoddy testing practices. Low-probability events don't come around often by their very nature and it can create complacency. I've seen some aerospace applications have some close calls related to shortcomings in QA integration; in those cases, luck saved the day, not good development practices.