defects

The manufacturers should be criminally liable if anyone gets injured and required to do a recall for defects.

Maybe you have personality defects which make people unwilling to work with you, but you are blind to them.

Car makers and auto-safety regulators have faced persistent criticism on Capitol Hill and from elsewhere for problems handling safety defects.

The problem is that there's always the (rational) incentive to defect from the coordinated outcome, because as you point out, it's better for you...if you're the only one who defects.

The feds have been breathing down their necks lately due to too many defects.

The car companies' failure to patch defects ought to have them facing severe fines.

Most of the times there will be false positives but every other month QA will catch enough minor defects to pay for itself.

Not a bad standard, but latent defects frequently have a long shelf life.

People with congenital defects can appear completely healthy right up until they die.

Imagine a car commercial on TV, and the announcer having to murmur a list of all the defects reported for the car's vehicle class.

Traditional breeding is notoriously bad at avoiding genetic defects and temperament problems.

Some of the risk considered was manufacturing defects and so forth, so not all the risk considered was human error on the part of the user.

Unit testing gives you fewer defects (at the price of some effort) in practice, but it's not the kind of thing you can theorize about (except that "it ought to reduce defects").

I've worked on analytics projects in the automotive industry for analyzing defects before they get into the "campaign" (aka recall) stage.

The best you could get is probably "in our study, with our participants, writing unit tests led to an X% drop in defects, at the price of Y% more effort".

I don't know how you even count that high, unless it's through extrapolation: "this nail was pounded incorrectly and there's 10 nails in a board and 1000 boards in this area, so 10,000 defects."