A redesign of the open risks and issues section from the UK government's official Test Completion Report template — the same document used in Case Studies #2, #6, and #7, this time the section that should answer "are we good to go?"
A release readiness report exists to answer one question for a decision-maker who may not have read the detailed testing documentation: are we good to go? A page that lists risks and issues without ever stating a verdict has done the data collection but not the report's actual job.
| R-04 | Third-party API latency |
| R-07 | Peak-load capacity |
| I-11 | Minor UI misalignment |
Four sections of the same document, four separate weak pages — see Exhibits A, F, and G for the others.
"Go, 2 monitored risks, 0 blockers" is the release decision this section exists to inform — stated first, not left implicit.
Monitored vs. accepted replaces an undifferentiated row in a table.
Nothing about the underlying assessment changed — only whether the reader has to reconstruct the verdict themselves.
Listing risks is data collection. Stating whether the accumulated risk is acceptable to ship against is the judgment call a release readiness report is supposed to make on the reader's behalf — and it's the one thing this template's structure never explicitly asks for.
If you've got a readiness review, go/no-go pack, or sign-off document where the risk data exists but the verdict doesn't, I'll take one page and redesign it — no cost, no obligation — the same way as above.