Derives human-readable manual test cases from a business-rule spec via a decision table: identify conditions and actions, build the full 2^n-column matrix, collapse columns with irrelevant entries, strike infeasible combinations, then emit one test case per remaining column (each feasible column is one coverage item per ISTQB CTFL v4.0 section 4.2.3). A deep single-technique walkthrough rather than a broad multi-lens case matrix; the output is manual step/expected cases rather than parameterized test code, and it covers how cases are derived rather than how a case record is structured. Use when a spec's outcome depends on interacting conditions (pricing, eligibility, discounts, routing rules) rather than the boundaries of a single input.
93
93%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
1.02xAverage score across 10 eval scenarios
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
The conflicting sentence identified rather than applied
66%
93%
The genuinely redundant sentence identified
100%
94%
All sixteen combinations carry a fee
100%
100%
Reduction count stated with reasoning
50%
100%
MUST NOT check only the passengers who pay
100%
100%
Payment channel scoped correctly
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
The four contradictory combinations marked unresolved
100%
100%
All sixteen combinations accounted for
100%
100%
Charge and speed kept as two results
100%
100%
MUST NOT merge combinations whose speed results differ
100%
100%
Below-threshold irrelevance stated with its scope
100%
100%
Unlimited domestic under-threshold case present
100%
100%
Test customers map to combinations
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
All sixteen states accounted for
96%
100%
Exactly the four unreachable states identified
100%
100%
MUST NOT delete the impossible states without a check that the constraint holds
100%
100%
The over-EUR-1,000 under-six-months conflict raised
100%
100%
Photo input marked as not affecting adjuster handling
100%
100%
Held-for-photo treated as its own result
100%
100%
One case per reachable state, not per statement
83%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
MUST NOT list sequence positions as single-event facts
100%
100%
The single-event table is built on exactly three facts
100%
100%
The sequence rules carried forward, not dropped
100%
100%
Expired card versus backup card conflict raised
100%
100%
Plan marked irrelevant where nothing further happens
100%
100%
Actions listed distinctly
0%
100%
Proposed failures map to combinations
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
All sixteen shipment shapes carry a total
93%
93%
MUST NOT merge shapes whose totals differ
100%
100%
Island residential tail-lift ambiguity raised
22%
0%
The legitimate merge is found and stated
100%
100%
Each surcharge amount is its own result
100%
100%
Comparison list covers the zero-surcharge shape
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
MUST NOT list compound facts as inputs
100%
100%
All sixteen situations accounted for
100%
100%
The escorted out-of-hours cleared contractor is raised
100%
0%
Refusal is a result in its own right
100%
100%
Escort not marked as irrelevant where it changes the log
100%
100%
Core hours identified as irrelevant for permanent employees
100%
100%
Badge-in attempts tie back to situations
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
All eight settings enumerated
100%
100%
Card-plus-code conflict raised, not resolved
100%
100%
Unstated default is present and labelled
50%
66%
Shipping and discount kept as separate results
100%
100%
Order total marked as not affecting the discount
100%
100%
MUST NOT propose cases only for the settings that earn a discount
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
Total number of weeks stated
100%
100%
Reduction to sixteen cases with named reasons
87%
62%
MUST NOT hand over one case per arrangement
100%
100%
Overtime-plus-holiday gap raised
100%
100%
Coverage stated against the case count
100%
100%
Salaried treatments are results, not absences
91%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
Full size of the problem stated before reduction
100%
100%
The two score facts handled as one number
100%
100%
Reachable count reconciled
88%
100%
Large-loan discount identified as inert below 700
100%
100%
MUST NOT hand over the unreduced set as the test list
100%
100%
Referred-versus-priced ambiguity raised
100%
100%
Rates are computed, not described
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
MUST NOT leave an outcome from the note without a result of its own
100%
100%
All eight combinations accounted for
100%
100%
The 14-day versus usage conflict raised
0%
100%
The monthly heavy-usage gap raised
100%
100%
Plan type identified as irrelevant inside 14 days
83%
100%
Cases cover the non-refund paths
100%
100%
Table of Contents