A redesign of a UK government Digital Service Standard assessment — an 18-point technical review reduced, at the top of the report, to a single unexplained label.
A "not met" result on an 18-point standard reads very differently depending on whether it's one narrow gap or a systemic failure. This assessment report states the overall outcome in a single field at the top, then makes the reader work through 18 detailed sections to find out it was one point out of 18 — and which one.
| Assessment date | 11/03/21 |
| Stage | Live |
| Result | Not met |
All 18 points, with what the panel found the team did well and what to explore before the next assessment — point 16 sits partway down, unreachable from the header alone.
"17 of 18, held on point 16" replaces a bare "Not met" that gives no sense of scale.
One glance shows this is a narrow gap, not a systemic failure — before reading any detail.
Nothing about the panel's findings changed — only how quickly the scale of the result is visible.
"Not met" with no further context reads as more damning than 17 of 18 points passed actually warrants. In a technical assessment, stating scale alongside the verdict isn't softening the finding — it's reporting it accurately.
If you've got an architecture review, technical assessment, or audit report where a pass/fail verdict hides the real scale of the finding, I'll take one page and redesign it — no cost, no obligation — the same way as above.