Someone asks what was tested before the 12 May release, and what you have is a screenshot of a green page. Which account was used? What was the expected outcome? Which environment ran, and what was deployed there?
Keep those details together when another person needs to review a release result. The record should explain the specific behavior tested, including its limits. It shouldn't imply that one passing flow establishes every part of a release process.
A useful record reads something like this:
Test: Refund button is only visible to admins. Environment: staging, serving the 12 May release. Result: passed. Signed in as a viewer account, opened an order and verified "Refund" was not visible.
Anyone can tell what that does and doesn't cover. "Billing tests passed" tells them very little.
In Zerocheck, a run keeps the YAML that ran with its step screenshots and errors, and the CLI can write the run record as JSON if another process needs it. A CLI run record doesn't carry repository or commit context, so note what was deployed.
That's engineering evidence, not a compliance certification. Zerocheck doesn't supply control mappings, audit evidence packages or a compliance score. The people responsible for your review process decide whether and how a particular test record is relevant. The browser test evidence guide goes further into what a run can establish.
US$500 in credits at sign up, with a dedicated instance and hands-on onboarding.
Book a setup call