The decision
Choose development from the cause.
An incomplete explanation may reflect missing knowledge, difficulty applying it or a delivery process that leaves too little time to collect evidence. Simon works through the finding and its supporting record with the tester before choosing an exercise.
The consultant practises the part they need to improve: describing preconditions, supporting a severity decision, handling an objection or giving advice a client can implement.
Illustrative example
One rejected finding can point to different causes.
Illustrative example: a finding returns from QA because its severity explanation is incomplete. Reviewing the original evidence and asking the tester to explain the conclusion can lead to different responses.
- The tester cannot explain the exploit's preconditions.
- Technical instruction followed by supervised practice on those preconditions.
- The explanation is sound, but the report leaves out a condition that changes its meaning.
- A worked reporting example and feedback on the next draft.
- The tester knew what to collect, but access expired before the evidence was captured.
- An evidence check during testing and a review of the time allocated.
- Reviewers require conflicting severity explanations.
- Agreement between reviewers on the standard, supported by examples.
These are diagnostic starting points. More than one cause may apply; the team's work determines the response.
Read the worked training exampleResponsibilities
Make practice part of delivery.
Conversec identifies the capability to develop, provides on-site coaching and feedback, and reviews how the consultant applies it to subsequent relevant work.
Your managers provide access to suitable work, allocate time for practice and review, and maintain the technical supervision and release authority needed for the engagement. The consultant makes and explains their own revisions.
- Coaching during live engagements.
- Scenario exercises based on the decisions consultants face.
- Feedback that explains the defect and the reasoning required.
- Review of a later report or client explanation.
A shared standard
Use AC/DC to explain what good looks like.
Actionable, Clear, Defensible and Correct gives testers and reviewers a shared basis for examining findings. The client should understand what needs to change, and the evidence should support the conclusion.
Separate material defects from wording preferences. A consultant needs to understand why a correction matters if they are to apply it independently.
Reviewing progress
Assess the next relevant piece of work.
Agree the evidence of improvement and when it can fairly be reviewed. That might be a severity explanation that no longer needs reconstruction, or a routine client discussion the tester can lead with appropriate escalation.
Review recurring material defects and independent performance. If the same difficulty persists, examine the exercise, feedback and working conditions, then adjust the intervention. Attendance alone does not demonstrate capability.