If you have some particular issue with the article, you should state that. Otherwise, the most charitable interpretation of your position I can come up with is "the article is wrong for some reason I refuse to specify", which doesn't lead to a productive dialogue.

I think you're the one being uncharitable here. The meaning of what he's saying is very clear. You can't say this probabilistic method (using LLMs to decide your e2e test plan) works if you only have a single example of it working.

It's really not clear. Using probabilistic methods to determine your e2e test plan is already best practice at large tech shops, and to be quite honest the heuristics that they used to use were pretty poor and arbitrary.

The author said they used Claude to decide which E2E tests to run and "Claude never missed a relevant E2E test."

How many times did they conduct this experiment? Over how long time? How did they determine which tests were relevant and that Claude didn't miss them? Did they try it on more than one project?

My point was that none of this tells me this will work in general