Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in the defense industry, it’s very much like the aerospace industry in that we deal with human life as a consequence of our work. We have software QA departments that operate very much like manufacturing or aerospace QA. Software QA provides nothing of value to software development; having it as a dedicated function works against the overtly stated goals of the function and counterintuitively acts to degrade q…
It sounds like they are calling something QA but using it as a liability shield. It makes sense that you are upset about that, but naming something QA and having it do something else doesn't mean that QA as an effort is bad. It means that the people doing that are being deceptive.
Sure, maybe, but if nobody ever can implement the theoretical utopia, maybe we should talk of things humans can do instead and ditch the unimplementable idea.
QA cannot be done by a separate team the way you dream: it will always be a political buffer zone staffed by the cheapest half-competent people you can find, expulsing good people into dev or management. Or you merge it into dev/solution design.
The reason is simple: just like contract law, you only care about quality once you are in trouble and need to reverse back the source of the issue to give to the client a post mortem. Otherwise, you care first about velocity, or $ input/hr of effort.