If you first approach a tool because of buzzwords, don't be surprised that you think of the buzzwords instead of the tool.
Durable executions greatly simplify how workflows can be implemented and audited, and they literally allow eternal workflow executions that are not tied to the lifetime of an instance assigned to execute them. Durable executions do not require fancy infrastructure, only a terribly simple database.
If you understand continuations, you understand durable executions. Otherwise, you'll be stuck with the excuse that they are buzzwords.
In a distributed or concurrent system, for full granularity, that can require specialized timing or virtualization techniques up to ensuring fully atomic snapshots and deterministic execution environments (and whether or not that properly models the SUT in real environments, or introduces bias/breaks the reproducibility in a way you care about)
Otherwise if you're only running against fixed checkpoints you have something closer to traces that maybe you could re-run or test against, in some cases, if you put in the work to set it up. In distributed systems that can be a lot of work so it's a bit vague if left unspecified. Because it's not enough to merely replay something if things can drift or don't accurately model the real system
You really need to read up on durable executions before commenting. Your comment reads as if you are completely oblivious to them. Their whole point is benefiting from an execution model where your workflow is comprised of idempotent pure functions whose inputs and outputs are tracked by the durable task persistence.
I didn't see the article mention idempotency anywhere, and you didn't in the original response to the guy who said it just sounded like a buzzword; atomic snapshotting with deterministic execution is literally how you make a program continuation an idempotent function!
And the article is about solving the problem at the language runtime level so it doesn't even do that. So it would be reasonable to assume it is a buzzword if it does not have the essential property you mentioned and I was referring to. I was not even intending to disagree with you but just add what would make it less of a buzzword in this kind of case.
You don't need specialized timing or virtualization techniques.
TCC checkpoints at explicit durable boundaries rather than at an arbitrary instruction immediately before a crash. So if the next operation repeatedly fails, ordinary retry limits or operator intervention are still required.
My proposed model is to represent the recoverable program state as a committed continuation, rather than reconstructing state by replaying the completed execution history.