I agree with you completely that it's used in too trite away. Which I think has echoes to backups and a lot of other "data hygiene" things in general (like doing backups at all initially, or strong passwords, or setting up new systems) which our industry has a long and unfortunate history of leaving manual and assigning a PEBKAC to when what was really needed was more automation. Manual effort doesn't scale, and cost is absolutely a critical issue for a long tale of data owners. A fundamental part of the entire value of ZFS and NAS for that matter is automating away all sorts of issues surrounding data integrity, from checksumming to disk integrity to backups, and doing so in a way that's highly dependable.
Which is how it should be. Yes bugs can happen but there's only so many 9s most of us can chase on our budgets. And "always test backups" in particular adds cost. Testing means restoring onto hardware that you can then use live, separate from your actual primary hardware or at a minimum on primary hardware with >2x the set size and enough performance to squeeze it in during downtime or around work. So yet another big increase in cost. "Testing backups" isn't trivial.
Which is how it should be. Yes bugs can happen but there's only so many 9s most of us can chase on our budgets. And "always test backups" in particular adds cost. Testing means restoring onto hardware that you can then use live, separate from your actual primary hardware or at a minimum on primary hardware with >2x the set size and enough performance to squeeze it in during downtime or around work. So yet another big increase in cost. "Testing backups" isn't trivial.