What still prevents QA from being strategic? (And how to change the game)

The concept of quality being everyone's responsibility is well understood, but in practice, it remains just a theory. Squads continue to outsource quality to QA, developers push code without coverage, and PMs prioritize speed over quality. The biggest barrier to quality is not technical, but rather a lazy mindset and lack of courage. Companies say quality is a priority, but they keep QA isolated, and developers say they test, but leave 80% of coverage for QA. The truth is that as long as QA is seen as the "delivery guarantor," engineering will continue to make mistakes with confidence. Three behaviors that hinder evolution are QA as a ready-code inspector, developers as feature delivery persons, and PMs as backlog dispatchers. Each role needs to face their responsibilities head-on, including developers writing testable code, tech leads demanding tests, and PMs prioritizing quality over speed. The right structure for quality already exists, but it needs to be taken seriously, and senior leadership is the pillar of quality. Change may be difficult, but the cost of non-quality hurts more, and quality should be viewed as a strategic investment, not a cost. Ultimately, the question is who has the courage to ensure that quality is being built every day, from the first commit.