test-evidence-review

Auditing automated test files against acceptance criteria involves evaluating assertion coverage, edge-case handling, naming quality, and formula traceability to ensure tests validate story requirements. This produces ADEQUATE, INCOMPLETE, or MISSING verdicts with a summary report.

Manual evidence auditing for sprint validation checks criterion linkage, sign-off completeness, artefact completeness, and freshness for Visual/Feel and UI stories. It ensures that manual evidence documents actually verify the required acceptance criteria before QA sign-off.

Yes, you can review test coverage for an entire epic or sprint scope. Scope-based reviews evaluate all stories within a system, epic, or sprint, producing aggregated ADEQUATE, INCOMPLETE, or MISSING verdicts and a summary report for the complete batch.

To know if test evidence covers edge cases before QA sign-off, you run an evidence audit that evaluates assertion coverage and edge-case testing alongside required sign-offs. The audit outputs a clear ADEQUATE or INCOMPLETE verdict highlighting missing validation.

The best way to prevent incomplete stories from being marked done is performing an evidence audit that cross-references test files and manual evidence with acceptance criteria. This validates coverage and required sign-offs, outputting a MISSING or INCOMPLETE verdict if validation gaps exist.

Yes, test evidence review works for Logic and Integration stories specifically by evaluating assertion coverage, edge-case testing, and formula traceability. It also applies to Visual/Feel, UI, and Config/Data stories to ensure complete criterion validation across all story types.