Good question but it’s not a criterion to which I personally pay that much attention. For those who may not be aware, cover is the ratio of earnings per share/dividend. Dividends are usually less than eps and the greater the ratio, the safer in theory is the payout. Companies aim for cover of >1 meaning that they pay less in dividend than eps, though occasionally it may fall to <1 where for example profits have fallen a lot in a year but the payout is maintained at a previous level which is higher than the current year's eps.
One major weakness in cover is that there can often be two or sometimes more versions of eps in the accounts, plus those calculated by outside analysts. So one would have to make a decision on which version to use and that decision may give wildly varying outcomes for cover. Also, eps will vary year to year and maybe dramatically on occasion, whereas dividends are likely to follow a far smoother pattern.
Ability and willingness to pay a particular dividend is influenced heavily by available cash, both at the time and for future requirements. Eps is an accounting calculation and subject to a lot of underlying influences, whereas cash, is well, cash.
I know some other commentators set a lot of store by cover but for me, it is not especially important and particularly not one year in isolation. I'm not saying I disregard it entirely but it comes low down in my assessment of shares.
.