What does “proof” in QA actually mean to you?

Kicking this off with something I’ve been thinking about lately.

In most teams I’ve worked with, QA usually ends at:

• “Tests passed”
• “Regression looks good”
• “No major bugs”

But once things hit production, reality sometimes tells a different story.

So I’m curious — when you say something is tested, what kind of proof do you actually rely on?

• Logs?
• Real user-like scenarios?
• Monitoring data?
• Just test results?

Or is it more of a “we’ve covered enough, let’s ship”?

Would be interesting to hear how different teams define confidence vs actual proof in their testing process.