I don't think that people often understand that if reliability doesn't increase before an adoption cycle, the lack of it will limit the success of the adoption cycle.

If I'm tasked with getting a tool to be used at least 2x as much, my first task is to reduce the failures per 1000 runs by 4x. In that way, if adoption increases by 2.5, 3x instead of the the minimum we are looking for, then the number of errors reported per week still goes down instead of up.

We like to think of things as percentages but the moment they start increasing in the time domain everyone gets mad, because they asked for and received the wrong thing.

And that's on top of the fact that when people are 'forced' to use a tool, any errors they experience will be lumped onto the Learned Helplessness theater they've been engaging in to avoid being made to use a tool that is going to make all of our lives easier.