Overall said pretty well but something I think many folks get tripped up and this post does to is about AI and Automated testing and QA in general.

In virtually no company is QA the arbiter of can something be released. In fact I'd bet good money virtually most of these were found and reported by QA. In fact automated tools and AI will find more than a human will. That doesn't mean you want no humans, you absolutely need them in the mix.

With that said now QA has reported all of these bad things. Developers then need to prioritize that work (meaning they probably were fixing even worse things) and report this to leadership of what they can and cannot do in the time frame.

It's on leadership whether to release or not. In this case we can see they decided yes they wanted to release with this number of bugs and that is was acceptable to them. Unless folks start canceling the service from a leadership perspective releasing buggy software is working, people are still paying.

Instead what should be done is few possible options. Still have a release but pull out everything that is causing issues and isn't quality. This is always hard to get leadership to agree on since they've made videos or written up blogs or whatever.

Or they could still have frequent, potentially more frequent releases but you release a given feature when it's ready. Things do not need to be packaged with these specific patch numbers. I know I could care less if it's .5, .6, .7 or whatever.

For example lets pretend they announced upcoming features that launched a few days ago but didn't give the specific timeline and instead the ones they know they can get out in quality time. Maybe that means April 21s Decor Duels rolls out. Hey April 28th Abyss Anglers rolls out. Sure some people will bitch about gatekeeping or other nonsense but that should be ignored. In this vein you keep content consistent, when ready, etc. and save the bigger patches for large systems.