Derives human-readable manual test cases from stateful behavior: identify states, events, transitions, and guard conditions, draw the state table including invalid (empty-cell) transitions, choose a coverage level (all states, valid transitions / 0-switch, transition pairs / 1-switch per Chow, all transitions including invalid ones), then derive one test case per coverage item as an event sequence with per-step expected states (ISTQB CTFL v4.0 section 4.2.4). 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 for lifecycle entities (accounts, orders, subscriptions), workflows, and UI wizards where the response to an event depends on the current state.
78
93%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
77%
0.81xAverage score across 10 eval scenarios
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Deliverable exists
100%
0%
The cancelling state is covered as a state in its own right
76%
0%
MUST NOT write cases that assert an outcome for simultaneous arrivals
100%
100%
The five finished states are used as starting points
100%
0%
MUST NOT model the scheduler's internal phases as states
100%
100%
All 45 state/input combinations accounted for
100%
0%
Both timeouts and both give-up paths are distinguished
66%
0%
Expected results come from the run page or the API
100%
0%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
Both finished statuses are used as starting points for every scan type
50%
100%
MUST NOT ship the journey walk as the pack
100%
100%
All 20 status/scan combinations accounted for
100%
100%
Mis-scans on a live parcel are covered
100%
100%
The hub self-scan is modelled as a transition
100%
100%
Expected results are what the public tracking page shows
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
The submitted application is attacked through routes the UI does not offer
100%
100%
MUST NOT record 'the button is not shown' as the expected result
87%
100%
Undefined behaviour is raised as questions, not answered
100%
100%
All 24 state/event combinations accounted for
100%
100%
Back is exercised from every step that has one
91%
100%
Save and exit is modelled as a transition on every step
100%
100%
Expected results are observable to the applicant
90%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
All 30 status/event combinations accounted for
100%
100%
The cancelled subscription is attacked with every event
100%
100%
Paused rejects the payment events
100%
100%
Transitions that keep the same status are modelled
100%
100%
Expected results are observable to the tester
100%
100%
MUST NOT ship a pack made only of things that work
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
MUST NOT invent balance-derived situations
100%
100%
Events that leave the situation unchanged are modelled as transitions
50%
50%
Redemption is modelled with its outcome depending on the amount
100%
100%
The two incidents are covered as refusals with their situations seeded
100%
100%
All 40 situation/event combinations accounted for
100%
100%
MUST NOT sweep a row of refusals into one case
83%
0%
Every case states starting balance and per-step balance
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
The model is built on the seven visible situations
100%
100%
MUST NOT assert on database state
100%
100%
The two indistinguishable codes are called out
100%
100%
Events that must be refused after the money moves
100%
85%
All 42 situation/event combinations accounted for
100%
100%
Transitions that keep the same label are modelled
100%
100%
Each case is runnable from the two screens alone
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
Approving is modelled as two distinct entries with different outcomes
100%
100%
The first approval has its own case asserting the contract did not move
100%
100%
MUST NOT collapse the two approvals into a single unasserted step
100%
100%
Actions that must be refused are covered
85%
100%
All 36 status/action combinations accounted for
100%
100%
The approval count is a stated precondition and its reset is exercised
100%
100%
Every step names the status the tester should see
100%
100%
Deliverable exists
100%
0%
Coverage is counted against transitions, not situations
100%
0%
MUST NOT let reaching every situation stand as the coverage claim
100%
0%
The lead's claim is answered explicitly
100%
0%
Answers posted outside the working situation are covered
100%
0%
All 28 situation/event combinations accounted for
100%
0%
The window closing is exercised from the paused situation
100%
0%
Cases are runnable steps with per-step expected situation
100%
0%
Deliverable exists
100%
100%
Statuses reachable by more than one route are identified with their routes
100%
83%
Cases run a route in followed by the next event
100%
100%
MUST NOT present one end-to-end walk as the coverage
100%
100%
MUST NOT dump every possible two-step sequence
100%
100%
Events that must be refused are covered
81%
81%
All 35 status/event combinations accounted for
100%
100%
Clock expectations are stated per step
100%
100%
Table of Contents