No, what I'm defending is my initial comment in this thread:

> Isn't this a testing and validation problem?

One way for it to be that kind of problem is by exposing weakness in the existing approach. Another way would be if the approach was worsened. But both things fit my original contention.

I don't disagree with your concluding paragraph at all. But what I think is that there is no reason that implementing with llm based tooling implies an increased defect rate. Rather, I think it implies that there are existing or new holes in the quality process. That doesn't imply that I think a defect rate of zero is possible. But I think holding the defect rate steady is possible.