A problem I frequently have with setting up testing policies is in convincing people to test what they can reliably test with the tools, and know what they cannot test.
Inconclusive tests to increase automation and coverage accomplish less than nothing. The opportunity cost, the loss of trust, the conflation of the manual testing surface area, are all worse than doing nothing.
The point of testing is to establish a level of trust. That level doesn’t need to be 100%. It can’t be 100% regardless. So you do what you can, and you solve the remaining problem a different way. But you need to know it’s there to address it, and the smoke and mirrors fight that.
I used to work for a company that enforced 80% code coverage for our CI/CD pipelines. Both teams I worked with there, in wildly different parts of the company, were playing games with excluding most files in the repo and writing dozens of tests that didn't actually test anything, just ran the code in the testing container so the lines would count as having been tested. I think LLMs have probably cleaned it all up a lot in the end, because the tests they write do actually test the code (against the code at the point you told the LLM to write the test a lot of the time, rather than a third party spec, but at least it's not just return true all the time).
Every 6 months there was a new testing initiative, which seemed to all be responded to by writing wrappers that returned true to the test automation system we were ordered to use.
Seems like a culture problem at both ends of the org.