Insights
Thought leadership & perspective
Short, practical essays about acceptance confidence, vendor software risk, and why journeys deserve first-class ownership.
Articles
Acceptance Risk Is Under-Owned
Why software consumers are carrying more risk than they realise — and what “acceptance” really means in vendor-managed environments.
Why Unit Tests Cannot Protect Software Consumers
Correctness is not confidence. Why unit testing is essential for builders — but irrelevant as assurance for consumers.
From BDD to Verifiable Journeys
Reclaiming behaviour for the people who live with it. Why verifiable journeys are BDD’s logical continuation for software consumers.
The XML Contract for User Intent
Why intent must outlive tools. A durable contract that keeps journeys stable as execution engines change.
Journeys Before Automation
Why documenting behaviour is valuable long before you automate it.
Delegating Quality Without Diluting Accountability
QA Is a Function, Not a Role. Concentrating quality in a single team creates risk — not confidence.
Why Acceptance Evidence Matters
“We were told it works” is not acceptance. Vendor assurances, release notes, and green dashboards can be useful — but they do not confirm that your critical user journeys still work in your environment.
What’s coming soon:
What’s coming soon: Why Acceptance Evidence Matters
“We were told it works” is not acceptance.
Vendor assurances, release notes, and green dashboards can be useful — but they do not confirm that
your critical user journeys still work in your environment.
This article explores the difference between delegated confidence and owned confidence — and why acceptance
evidence should be framed around the journeys your organisation depends on, not the tests someone else chose
to run.