I don’t think that’s right.

Unit tests check whether a specific code module is implemented correctly given its (implicit) specification.

Good “laws” are independent of the structure of the code.

Tests may be a useful source for inferring what the laws are, but much of the actual content of the tests aren’t “laws” at all.

I think the premise is more that if one is given a grouping/constellation of unit tests that one can derive generalized laws by looking at what behavior those tests were checking for or against.

if there are a dozen unit tests trying to determine if some regex can escape a sensitive area, then one can derive a generalized 'don't let the regex escape from here' type rule -- or at least you could theoretically. I'm sure in reality that'd be a big minefield much like harness self-skill-writing has been.

you might be interested in property-based testing, which somewhat enumerates tests based on invariance and induction