Testing that does not reduce risk is theatre.
A release can look healthy while risk is unmanaged.
If a critical journey fails quietly, who owns the consequence?
The 3×3 Diagnostic makes risk visible and ownership explicit in 2–3 weeks.
Why confidence still isn’t earned
- Effort drifts toward what’s easiest to automate, not what would hurt most if it failed.
- Metrics improve while release risk remains unchanged.
- Teams maintain checks instead of protecting critical journeys.
This isn’t a tooling problem. It’s a signal problem. The organisation is busy, but it still can’t clearly see when a critical journey has stopped working.
What still fails silently
- Critical journeys that rely on last minute manual checking before release.
- Areas of the system that can’t be exercised reliably, even with automation.
- End-to-end flows where no one can confidently say this works today.
Until these gaps are visible and ownership is explicit, adding more checks won’t make releases safer. It just makes the noise louder.
Start with one critical journey
Expand only when it’s justified.
We start by identifying a single business-critical journey and understanding what
would happen if it failed.
Only once it is clear and stable do we decide how it should be protected.
Three clear steps
We don’t move forward until the current step is complete.
1. Identify the critical journey
Together, we agree on the user journey that matters most to revenue, reputation, or operational risk. We surface the assumptions being relied on and decide whether the journey is actually suitable for protection.
2. Make it observable
We establish how you know this journey is working today and where failure could go unnoticed. That may involve checks, monitoring, or automation, depending on what provides the clearest signal.
3. Decide how to protect and scale
Once the right signal is in place, we decide whether and how to extend protection to other journeys. Expansion is deliberate, not automatic, and always tied back to business risk and ownership.