As gshulegaard has mentioned, I think you&#x27;re taking the name Zero-Bug to mean something different than what I intended.<p>Zero-Bug does not mean writing software without defects - that&#x27;s impossible, instead it means correctly classifying bugs and then striving to keep the bug-count at 0.<p>I&#x27;ve written another article on the three types of bugs, and one of those is the &quot;unknown ones&quot; you refer to. There are things you can do to tease out some unknowns, but of course there&#x27;s no cure for bugs as a whole. It&#x27;s here if you&#x27;re interested: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;TlvNcY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;TlvNcY</a><p>On the clickbait, I assure you it&#x27;s not. I labelled the approach Zero-Bug long before writing the article. It creates an attitude in a team. After I&#x27;ve worked with teams to clarify what Zero-Bug really means, they strived towards doing more checks before even pushing out code. We celebrated Zero-Bug days when we were actually down to 0 and believe it or not, I&#x27;ve seen up to 2 iterations at a go be free of bugs. Coincidence? I don&#x27;t think so.