Reporting and TVR Alignment

Status: Working operational framework. The controlled TVR and GTR remain authoritative where this page differs from them.

This page reconciles the May 2026 MS3 reporting-framework draft with the reporting model now implemented by the Phase 2 repository. It describes how test execution, evidence, technical notes and TVR contributions should remain traceable as delivery progresses.

Authority and Purpose

The reporting model exists to make programme outputs visible, attributable and auditable without creating a second controlled test register. Its responsibilities are divided between the programme sources and this repository:

• The Global Test Register (GTR) owns formal test identity, assignment and reported status.
• The Testing, Validation and Results document (TVR) owns the programme testing narrative and consolidated results.
• Technical notes hold the detailed evidence and interpretation produced by each work package.
• The Phase 2 repository (DBR) publishes a consolidated view and records source-data discrepancies without silently correcting them.

When a source is incomplete or inconsistent, the repository retains the source value and raises a query rather than silently changing it. The Information Sources page explains the authority boundaries.

Traceability Chain

Every reported outcome should remain traceable through the complete chain:

Test execution
  → Evidence collection
  → Technical note
  → TVR section
  → Programme review and sign-off

At minimum, each test record should identify its test ID, strand, work package, responsible partner, KPI or KVI, current status, technical note, TVR reference, latest update and any material risk or blocker. The GTR supplies those fields; status cards expose them without becoming a replacement register.

Accountability

Delegation does not remove accountability. A reporting gap should always resolve to a test, an expected artefact and an owner.

Status Lifecycle

The original draft proposed an eight-stage lifecycle. The implemented GTR-aligned lifecycle is:

1. Not Started
2. Planned
3. In Progress
4. Results Captured
5. Technical Note Drafted
6. Technical Note Complete
7. TVR Aligned
8. Complete

The live dashboard's status table is the canonical rendered definition. Status must describe available evidence, not anticipated progress. In particular, test execution alone does not imply that its technical note or TVR contribution is complete.

Review and Readiness

Operational reviews should examine test progress, evidence, technical-note status, dashboard accuracy, risks and unresolved source queries. Programme governance reviews should additionally examine TVR alignment, milestone readiness, escalations and resource constraints.

A milestone-readiness claim requires evidence that:

• required tests and evidence are complete;
• technical notes are complete and reviewable;
• each applicable test and technical note maps to the TVR;
• material risks and outstanding actions have named owners; and
• remaining source discrepancies are understood rather than hidden by the reporting layer.

The intended outcome is that TVR production becomes consolidation of maintained evidence, not a late recovery exercise.

Current Implementation

The repository currently provides:

• structured status cards generated from the GTR;
• a canonical status taxonomy shared by validation, dashboards and snapshots;
• programme, strand and work-package status views;
• references from cards to technical notes and TVR sections where supplied; and
• a standing query register for source values that cannot be reconciled safely.

Incomplete technical-note and TVR references remain source-data gaps. They are tracked through the query and reprocessing workflow, not filled by inference in the published cards.