Progress Report on Test Rerun Bargaining

Reporting Period

The period under review covers the interval between the first documented instance of test rerun bargaining and the current moment, during which the behavior has remained stable.

Status

Active. Not resolved. Not escalating. Stable at a level that does not justify a formal intervention but does justify this report.

Summary of Behavior

Developers rerun a flaky test without changing anything and treat a pass as partial evidence that the system is fine. A pass is treated as partial evidence that the system is fine, which is different from the system being fine. This distinction is known to all parties. It does not change the behavior.

Metrics

• Reruns per flaky test, average: 2.3
• Tests fixed after rerun confirmed pass: 0
• Tests that failed again the following week: 11
• Times the phrase "it passed twice in a row" was used as a deployment argument: 7

Analysis

Test rerun bargaining creates a small sense of control. The system can prove one thing mechanically. Human suspicion demands a second form of evidence. The rerun is that second form. Under the governing rule, familiarity may certify the practice even when efficiency cannot. Familiarity is present.

The sense of control became something people check for before trusting the ordinary process. The ordinary process is continuous integration. The continuous integration system already reruns tests. The manual rerun is a redundant action that precedes a system whose function is to provide the same information. Both are retained.

Factors of Concern

By the end of the reporting period, losing the rerun ritual felt more alarming than the original problem the ritual was meant to address. The original problem was flaky tests. Flaky tests remain. The ritual is load-bearing.

Recommended Next Steps

None at this time. The behavior is documented. Documentation is the deliverable for this period. Next steps will be identified in the following reporting period, which is expected to contain similar findings.