You don't need to be at 100% to be better than some comments.

Mind you, no serious project is anywhere close to 100% coverage. It may have 100% unit-test coverage, but that is a far cry from 100% coverage.

And the valuable comments are the ones that describe integration interactions.

No serious project is anywhere close to "100% comment coverage" either.

I'm not pitching comments as a replacement for all tests, like some are pitching tests as a replacement for all comments.

I'm pitching comments as a compromise when the test that encodes their meaning is impractical.

Combining tests and comments is still not going to get you to 100% coverage though. So for comments to be worthwhile the marginal gain from using them has to outweigh the cost. IME it's usually better to put that effort into better tests/tooling/etc..

I'm curious, who is pitching for that?