Of course, the question explicitly being asked (related to internal mandate) was if the firmware was signed — not if the firmware update process actually checked the signature (it certainly did not).
I'm generally aligned with this, but it is predicated on the whole "well architected" code part.
The test can show intended use, show interesting corner cases, and I know it is up to date because it is constantly running and passing.
I think that is a huge underrated benefit of adding a lot more testing.
If I think a developer is going to ask a question of how something works, or about a corner case, isn't that deserving of a test, so they can just see proof of the answer to their question immediately rather than trying to re-derive it?
Just by running them you can measure if they are in or out of sync with the code (well, if they were written correctly).