Maybe critical areas, e.g. that have the same amount of bugs as the rest but are complained about more? (since the algorithm can only consider bugs that have been reported, so biased to areas important to users) Or maybe that are prioritized by management? (since it considers fixed bugs, so bias towards bugs that were fixed first)
Hopefully an increased scrutiny on new patches to those areas leads to fewer bugs getting in which breaks the feedback loop, but if bugs are fixed in separate commit this sounds like it could have negative effects (specific developers/areas getting all the attention, leading to the discovery of more bugs/nitpicks there, reinforcing the bias...).
Maybe critical areas, e.g. that have the same amount of bugs as the rest but are complained about more? (since the algorithm can only consider bugs that have been reported, so biased to areas important to users) Or maybe that are prioritized by management? (since it considers fixed bugs, so bias towards bugs that were fixed first)
Hopefully an increased scrutiny on new patches to those areas leads to fewer bugs getting in which breaks the feedback loop, but if bugs are fixed in separate commit this sounds like it could have negative effects (specific developers/areas getting all the attention, leading to the discovery of more bugs/nitpicks there, reinforcing the bias...).