I would like to coin a phrase, a term, an idea in (software) project management: The Curve of Depression.

The idea is that we try to make things, and we inevitably have some bugs. Now, depending on all sorts of variables we each have a subjective reaction to each bug. It ranges from something like "oh good find, QA, thanks!" (the 'good' side) over to "whichever programmer did that should be summarily executed, post haste - even if it was myself!" (the 'bad' side). So there, that's the vertical axis.

The horizontal axis of the Curve is how much improved the thing is when it goes through another round. Did it get resolved in one go? Or has it been dragging on for ever? If there's something really complicated/complex, then (I guess, in some non-Agile sense, anyway) it is OK for that thing to not make much progress so the curve is flatter. Other things that should not have been broken in the first place, or which should really only take 1 more try to get right ought to have a curve that looks like the downward majority of the Winter Olympic's ski jump.

I'd like to know what people's subjective Curve of Depression is that they follow; how they rank things; etc. And then how their projects seem to go. Do they follow the curve(s) well? Do they blow out past them? Do they come in tighter?