What would show that the work is done?

A screenshot can show what a form looks like. It cannot, by itself, show that someone can complete the form using a keyboard. If you’re reviewing work, the evidence needs to address the claim you are being asked to accept.

This principle asks the person delivering the work to make that connection visible. A reviewer should be able to examine the result without reconstructing the whole project or taking a confident status report on trust.

The test count isn’t the answer

Consider a hypothetical appointment form. The team has promised that a person can choose a time and submit the form without using a mouse. The developer reports that all automated tests pass and includes a screenshot of the finished page.

The tests check required fields and confirm that valid entries are saved. Those are useful checks. They don’t exercise keyboard navigation through the date picker. In the imagined failure, focus enters the calendar and never moves back to the rest of the form.

A better delivery includes a check of the promised interaction: open the form, reach each control, choose a date, correct an error and complete the submission using the keyboard. The reviewer gets enough information to repeat that check, along with the relevant test results. The report identifies the browser and conditions used, so nobody mistakes one observed path for an examination of every possible use.

I would keep the evidence close to the work: the changed file and its test, the analysis and its source data, the design and the reason for the choice. Separate documents are useful when they help someone inspect the result. Requiring a new report for information already visible in the work adds a task without adding evidence.

Exploration produces a different kind of result

Evidence has to fit the stage of work. A design sketch shows that an idea has been developed enough to examine. It doesn’t establish that customers want it. An experiment that disproves a proposed approach can be a useful result even though nothing is ready to ship.

The phrase “Progress that cannot show itself” needs qualification. People can develop understanding before they can explain it well. A researcher may recognize a flaw in an approach while thinking through it, without yet producing an artifact. That learning is real. I wouldn’t require a record of every thought as the price of acknowledging it.

The distinction matters when other people are about to rely on a delivery claim. “I understand the problem better” and “the replacement is ready to use” support different decisions. The second needs something inspectable before a team plans around it.

Evidence has an audience

Some evidence belongs in a restricted review. Customer records, private interviews and security details should not become public attachments merely to make a report look thorough. An authorized reviewer can inspect the underlying material. A broader audience can receive what the review established or a reproduction of the problem using permitted test data.

Judgment also matters. A reasoned editorial choice does not become better because someone assigns it a numerical score. Explain the relevant choices and uncertainty in a form the recipient can evaluate.

For the appointment form, the immediate decision is concrete: can the promised keyboard interaction be completed? Show that interaction. Keep claims about wider accessibility separate until they have been examined.