The Process

The 3×3 Diagnostic is a systems analysis that makes delivery risk visible, clarifies ownership, and turns existing tests into decision-grade release signal.

The work runs in three stages. Each stage is fixed in scope and time-boxed. You choose whether to continue after each stage.

Inside the 3×3 Diagnostic

1. Baseline

Fixed scope. Time-boxed. Journey-led.

This stage establishes reality and sets a baseline for what “good” looks like today.

We identify high-risk journeys, surface assumptions, and clarify ownership. The goal is simple clarity: “this works today” versus “we assume it does”.

No automation obligation.

2. Systemic Analysis

Boundary-led. Seam-focused. System-level.

We trace failure paths across boundaries and seams, identify where signal is lost, and assess whether automation is economically viable.

This stage produces a clear decision: what must change, what can be governed, and what should be accepted or deferred.

3. Automation (optional)

Optional. Targeted. High-signal only.

This is not a test suite expansion programme.

If you choose to proceed, we implement only what creates trustworthy signal for the risks identified.

No theatre, no vanity coverage, no noisy duplication.

What you leave with at each stage

After Stage 1: Baseline

Three high-consequence journeys, chosen for risk
Intent, assumptions, and ownership made explicit
Known points of silent failure, and how you would detect them
A shared definition of what “good” looks like today

After Stage 2: Systemic Analysis

A boundary and seam map showing where signal is lost
Failure paths traced, including detection gaps
A view on economic testability: viable vs not, and why
A clear decision: fix, govern, accept, or defer, with owners

After Stage 3: Automation (optional)

A small set of high-signal checks aligned to real risk
Automation only where it produces trustworthy signal
Reduced noise: less duplication, less flake
A structure your team can extend without degrading signal

Where BDD fits

We use a light-touch BDD style to keep intent explicit and prevent automation becoming ambiguous. Each scenario is extended with:

And if this fails, the upshot is ___
And the owner is ___

This ensures failures map to consequence, and ownership stays unambiguous.

We do not replace existing automation.

We classify genuine release signal, reduce noise, and protect what matters. Where automation is not economically viable, we make that visible and outline what would need to change for trustworthy signal to exist.