Test the written process

Test the written process — guided practice

Use two walkthrough cases to identify a real instruction gap.

Fictional date-counting rule: duration equals return date minus pickup date, using elapsed calendar days. June 3 to June 8 is 5 days; June 3 to June 10 is 7 days and passes the duration limit; June 3 to June 11 is 8 days and goes to Lee. Use a text editor, a free document editor, or paper. Start from the following fictional records; they reset this lesson even if your earlier answer differed. Draft version 0.1 says “Check the quantity and available stock, reserve, then confirm.” Test A: complete request for 2 stands over 5 days; 3 free. Test B: complete request for 2 stands over 10 days; 3 free. Policy maximum duration is 7 days. In a literal walkthrough the draft approves both. Test log columns: case, expected policy outcome, draft outcome, mismatch, proposed edit.

1. 1. Write expected outcomes first

   Use policy, not the draft, to predict each result.

   You should see: A should confirm; B should be pending with Lee.

   Independent expected outcomes prevent a test from repeating the document’s mistake.

2. 2. Trace the draft literally

   Apply only the checks the draft actually names.

   You should see: Both A and B reach reservation because duration is absent.

   Reading generously would hide the missing control.

3. 3. Describe the failure

   Record the specific mismatch for B and its cause.

   You should see: B is incorrectly approved because the seven-day limit is never checked.

   A precise cause leads to a targeted repair.

4. 4. Retest the edit

   Add a duration check before availability and run both cases again.

   You should see: A still passes; B is routed to Lee and no stock is reserved.

   A repair must fix the failure without breaking the normal case.