same content, different sender
manual v automated
The manual-versus-automated argument is usually a turf war when it should be a division of labor. Automation never gets bored re-running the same hundred checks; a human notices the thing that was never in the script. The skill is not picking a side — it is knowing which job belongs to which.
How a QA brain runs the check
Is this flow stable enough that automating it will actually pay off?
Is it repetitive and high-risk — the kind of thing machines should guard every build?
Is it new, subjective, or changing daily, where exploring by hand wins?
Am I automating to save real time, or just to feel thorough?
Which checks would I genuinely regret running by hand on every release?
Why it matters
Automate what is stable, repetitive, and high-risk; explore by hand what is new, subjective, or fast-moving. Get the split wrong and you either burn hours clicking or babysit brittle scripts nobody trusts. Get it right and each approach quietly covers the other's blind spot.
Till next time,