What We Do
AutoSpec QA helps leadership teams earn delivery confidence through signal tied to consequence, not activity.
When failures do not map cleanly to intent, ownership, and business consequence, release decisions become judgement calls. That is rarely a tooling problem. It is a signal problem.
We fix that with two contained, executive-grade interventions. They reach the same outcome, but start in different places, depending on where your risk actually lives.
Two ways in
- 3×3 Diagnostic (journey-first): best when releases feel risky and you need clarity quickly on the handful of journeys that matter most.
- 3×4 System Diagnostic (boundary-first): best when risk is structural, distributed across teams, integrations, environments, or an already-scaled test estate.
Both interventions make risk visible and ownership explicit. They differ only in where they begin.
3×3 Diagnostic
A short, contained intervention for teams with plenty of activity but unclear release confidence. We make the highest-consequence journeys observable and decision-ready.
When this is for you
- Releases look healthy while risk remains unmanaged
- Manual regression becomes a dependency
- Coverage increases but confidence does not
- Critical flows “mostly work” until they do not
- Automation exists, but failures do not map to intent, ownership, or impact
What you leave with
- Three journeys selected for consequence, not convenience
- Intent, assumptions, and ownership made explicit for each journey
- A boundary and seam view of where failure can go unnoticed
- A small set of high-signal checks or observations that prove “this works today”
- A Decision Brief: proceed, pause, or stop, with named owners and next actions
3×4 System Diagnostic
A boundary-first diagnostic for systems where risk is spread across seams: services, integrations, state handoffs, environments, or multiple teams. The goal is governed confidence at scale, without adding noise.
When this is for you
- Multiple services, integrations, third parties, or asynchronous flows
- Ownership is fragmented and failures happen “between things”
- A large test estate exists, but signal is noisy or untrusted
- Incidents recur even though metrics look fine
- You need a system-level view of what must be true to ship
What you leave with
- A clear boundary map showing where confidence is earned versus assumed
- A prioritised seam register tied to consequence and named owners
- Decision-grade evidence requirements, what must be observed or proven to ship
- Rules that prevent low-value checks from diluting release signal
- A Decision Brief leadership can use to proceed, pause, or stop
Where BDD and automation fit
We use a light-touch BDD style to keep intent explicit, so failures map to consequence instead of becoming theatre.
- And if this fails, the upshot is ___
- And the owner is ___
If automation is the clearest way to create trustworthy signal, we use Playwright across UI, API, or both. If something is not economically testable, we identify what would have to change for decision-grade confidence to exist.
If you already have automation, we do not replace it. We classify what is genuine release signal, reduce noise, and protect what matters.
For the 3×3 approach, see the process. If you want to discuss whether 3×3 or 3×4 fits your situation, contact us.