maybe it’s so obvious that it doesn’t need to be said but from what I gather, perhaps they are not aware that QA isn’t about the number of bugs raised. It’s about coverage.
If there’s a critical feature that must be tested fully and I write 100 automated tests that found no bugs - that doesn’t mean I failed.
If there’s a customer issue raised later, then, again, on 1 vs 100, that was really good coverage and it’s nearly impossible to even imagine a “fully tested” feature. We do our best as humans with limited time and some issues do get to customers.
If the issues are really low-level (like, the “new tab” button on your browser doesn’t work) or the volume of defects is similar to the volume of testing (so, we spent 100 days proving the release and then we get 20 customer issues after a week), then, yeah, the QA process is broken - what are we doing to fix it?
Otherwise, that’s the nature of business, not the fault of QA and your leaders need to make sure the discussion isn’t “blaming” QA but everyone accepts responsibility for what they sold, what they developed and how the entire development was managed.
It’s like blaming the goalie for losing a football game… Or asking what a goalie is for anyway…
Honestly sounds like a leadership or company-culture problem. No single department should be advertising themselves and demanding due attention and understanding!