I really wonder where all of these people who believe that tests perfectly encapsulate the behaviour of software come from. Maybe it's because LLMs happen to work better when you give them acceptance criteria and people struggle to distinguish between "better" and "good"?
The real test is years in production. Over time your test suite grows when bugs are found and fixed, but not every bugfix necessarily gets a test, and it's very rare that a bugfix is exhaustively tested. Relying on the test suite as a directional indicator that your vibecoded rewrite functions something like the original is probably sensible. But it isn't "done" until you've run it in production for at least as long as the original. And that's where it all falls apart, because maintenance will be a nightmare. Nobody knows how the new thing works.
Ladybird's Rust port of the JS engine was a good example. Compare the output byte-for-byte, run both in production (with the new code disabled but checked) before releasing. It was LLM-translated but done carefully.