Technical work becomes misleading when several kinds of evidence are compressed into one confident sentence. A feature can exist in source code without being connected to the active flow. A connected flow can exist without being observed in a real environment. A passing test is not the same as an authorized acceptance.
I use a simple evidence ladder to keep those distinctions visible.
- Defined in source — code, configuration, or documentation describes the capability.
- Connected in a workflow — another component or configuration points to that capability.
- Observed at runtime — direct evidence shows it executed in the inspected environment.
- Tested against a criterion — a defined check passed under stated conditions.
- Formally accepted — an authorized party confirmed that the relevant requirement was met.
Each level is useful, but none automatically grants the next level. This matters in system reviews, handovers, product documentation, and project reporting, where readers make decisions based on the wording we choose.
Write the boundary into the deliverable
Good documentation says whether a path is source-derived, locally verified, production-verified, or formally accepted. It identifies the evidence, the environment, and the remaining uncertainty.
That language may be less dramatic, but it makes the next decision safer. It also prevents a useful technical investigation from accidentally becoming an unsupported business or delivery claim.