The correct amount of applied test time is often subjective. My theory to objectify is this.

Plug a tester into the mains supply.
Turn the juice on.
When his screams reach a certain pitch, you objectively know QA is done.

Thoughts?

If your company has a dedicated QA or "Testing team," it's broken. It those teams don't write automated test, the company needs to be razed to the ground, and the spot where it stood should be declared a monument to never letting that happen again.

@SortOfTested we do have such a team, and they do write automated tests.

The problems start with "why do your tests take 4 hours when 20 minutes will do", "why does it take you a full week to change your mocks", "why did you change gitignore to exclude the apps code but not yours" and "eating crayons is bad, here's why".

I like the "pitch" indicator, imagine a test-framework or compiler or what not that listens to your screams and just re-runs if you reach a certain volume/pitch.

I think you're unto something but, how would this model fit in a CI workflow?

@ars1 Possibly. I find some QAs believe their best contributions are as seat warmers, and therefore are in a fixed position. A quick jury rig (ie. Like most CI) and you're cooking.