Formalize confusion around "error", "defect", "fault", etc. as a core example in the intro

[samm82]

Workflow

After #34 has been closed (and its relevant information documented), I'll consolidate the relevant information below as a paragraph to be (hopefully) added to the intro. In particular, I'll make sure my point is clearly articulated before providing specific examples! Then, I'll request review on it from @smiths in the context of #131 and @JacquesCarette in the context of #126. If it looks good, I'll add it to the intro and this issue can be closed.

Lack of Clarity

I've identified the following points of confusion:

• The term "fault" is "overloaded with too many meanings, as engineers and others use the word to refer to all different types of anomalies" (Washizaki, 2024, p. 12-3)
• The term "defect" may be used as a "generic term that can refer to either a fault (cause) or a failure (effect)" (IEEE, 2017, p. 124; 2010, p. 96; OG 2005) "when the distinction is not important" (Bourque and Fairley, 2014, p. 4-3; OG IEEE, 1996)
• Captured in my thesis as a discrepancy: The differences between the terms “error”, “failure” and “fault” are significant and meaningful (ISO/IEC and IEEE, 2010, pp. 128, 139–140; Washizaki, 2024, p. 12-3; van Vliet, 2000, pp. 399–400), but Patton (2006, p. 14) does away with them, saying “there’s no reason to dice words” and to “just call it what it is and get on with it”. These terms, along with “defect”, “problem”, “incident”, “anomaly”, “variance”, “inconsistency”, “feature” (!), and “a list of unmentionable terms” are abandoned in favour of the chosen term “bug” (pp. 13–14).

So what?

1. Sources contradict each other
2. These terms are used both precisely (which should be preferred for taxonomies, standards, and generation) and imprecisely (which may apply better for teams or more ad hoc contexts)
3. Time is wasted discussing/figuring out these terms (see example from Patton, 2006) when they should be prescribed and standardized
4. A subset of test approaches focus on this area of testing that are directly affected by the distinctions (or lack thereof) between these terms.

[samm82]

@JacquesCarette was right when he said the "dumb examples" weren't a good choice for the intro; there was this MUCH better example in plain sight all along! I've replace the dumb definition examples with this more cohesive set of error-based ones, including tweaking the surrounding paragraphs to have a better flow. I've already pushed this change to main as I'm pretty confident in it, but am still open for feedback! The relevant change is here, from the middle of the first page to the top little bit of the last.

I've labelled this issue as a review; if there is any feedback, keep this issue open and I'll address it here. If not, this issue can be closed after one/both of @JacquesCarette and @smiths review it! 😁