80% test coverage means nothing if you're testing the wrong 80%. Here's how I think about coverage — not as a number to chase, but as a map of where you're blind.
I've seen codebases with 95% test coverage that ship critical bugs weekly. I've seen codebases with 40% coverage that rarely break.
The number isn't the problem. The obsession with the number is.
Here's a test that increases coverage but catches nothing:
\\
Reader route
article -> proof -> offer
cluster
Testing & QA
intent
Testing
route
next step
What to do with this
If this topic maps to a real business problem, keep reading the cluster, study the academy path, or route the work into a scoped engagement.
