Probably not. You as a developer could write a Jepsen harness for your system and find the same results seen here. You could also write property-based tests to improve your testing model and input space coverage. You could also use mutation testing to see how good your tests are, etc. etc. etc.
At my last job we held off running a chaos test suite against our platform in the certification environment until _after_ the QA department came back with their report and gave the platform all green checkmarks. This was an exercise in both validating the value of the chaos engineering/testing work as well as partially discrediting the idea that QA is capable of exercising enough of the system in enough ways to expose non-obvious/nuanced edge cases.
I mean I guess there's an argument to be made that QA could be engineering and building their own rich tooling like a chaos testing framework, but that seems extremely unlikely to happen in the current typical formulation of QA.
At my last job we held off running a chaos test suite against our platform in the certification environment until _after_ the QA department came back with their report and gave the platform all green checkmarks. This was an exercise in both validating the value of the chaos engineering/testing work as well as partially discrediting the idea that QA is capable of exercising enough of the system in enough ways to expose non-obvious/nuanced edge cases.
I mean I guess there's an argument to be made that QA could be engineering and building their own rich tooling like a chaos testing framework, but that seems extremely unlikely to happen in the current typical formulation of QA.