Our test cases cover the happy path only. What is missing?
Incomplete scenario coverageInclude relevant exceptions, boundary conditions, permissions, recovery, and invalid inputs. Prioritize according to consequences rather than trying to enumerate every imaginable combination.
What to do now
- Map critical user journeys
- Identify plausible failure and exception paths
- Select risk-based test cases
- Record coverage gaps and release implications
When to escalate
Escalate when
A critical exception or recovery behavior remains unverified.
Who decides
The acceptance authority and relevant quality owner
Example
An approval test includes rejection, return, delegation, and unauthorized access where those behaviors are in scope.
Mistake to avoid
Counting many repetitive happy-path tests as broad coverage.
Prevent a repeat
Check that closure evidence proves the agreed outcome instead of relying only on a completion percentage.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Tasks
- Documents
- Approvals
Attach acceptance criteria and test evidence to the deliverable or task, then record the authorized review decision. See the platform
Related cases
- Testing is scheduled only at the end. How can we reduce risk now?Late quality feedback
- Who should perform user acceptance testing?Unclear business verification ownership
- The estimate includes coding but not testing or rework. How should we revise it?Incomplete work estimate
- Audit asks for evidence, but the team only has verbal assurances. What can we provide?Insufficient control evidence