[sampli]

Considering human tests should already have a high coverage rate, if the 25% that increased coverage were actual good tests, I think it’s a useful tool

[bornfreddy]

I was actually surprised they had less than 75% coverage to start with.

[sanxiyn]

25% of test cases increased coverage, not coverage was increased by 25%. For example, if they started with 90% coverage and each test case increased coverage by 0.1% and there were 100 test cases, final coverage was 92.5%.