Paper author here.  Scoring coverage for every pass is an interesting idea and something I&#x27;d like to look into.  I&#x27;m not sure it would change the result as much as you think, though.  The basic finding of the paper is that coverage is a complicated way of measuring the size of the suite.  Counting the number of times each line is hit will have the same problem, I think: writing more tests increases that score but also increases the number of bugs found, causing a spurious correlation.<p>My hunch is that the quality of the oracle matters more than the coverage score.  You can write tests that cover all the code without actually checking anything; the tests will only catch bugs if you&#x27;re carefully comparing expected and actual results.  Maybe a simple metric like &quot;number of asserts&quot; would be useful -- except, of course, that will also be correlated with the size of the suite...  It&#x27;s a tough problem.<p>The point about the title is fair.  I erred on the side of clickbait when I wrote the paper and regret it a bit.  On the other hand, it worked. :)