For whoever runs the area
Three things change when conformance between requirement and code stops being a conversation and becomes a record.
No impact metrics on this page. Until there is customer data, we talk about mechanism — not results.
Rework that never happens
The case is concrete, and it is not ours: a company with twenty developers. Code comes back from the test team often. And the test team writes tests that may not have needed to exist at all, because there is no way to know what is already covered.
Both problems have one root. Nobody checked the requirement against the code before the task existed, and nobody tied test cases to criteria afterwards.
The requirement reaches QA already validated against the code and carrying explicit criteria; test cases come out traced to the criterion they cover. You can see which criterion has no test, and which test covers no criterion.
C2Preparation instructions returned per exam type
CT-03CT-04
C4Preparation confirmation required in the request
CT-06
C6A slot already taken on the professional’s schedule is blocked at booking
no test case
C7Booking limited to the Front desk and Clinical staff roles
CT-09
CT-11book two exams on the same daycovers no criterion
Knowledge that does not evaporate
Every business rule in a system with years behind it has a reason. Almost always that reason lives in somebody’s head.
Every objection Aferiz raises is accepted or pushed back by a person, and both are recorded: what was flagged, with evidence in the code, and the answer that settled it. This is not documentation somebody has to remember to write — it is the trail of a decision that was already made.
When someone leaves the company, the reason stays.
- objection
- The requirement says a slot already taken must be refused. The free-slot grid never subtracts an exam already booked.Servicos/DisponibilidadeProfissionalService.cs:45
- answer
- Applies to exams with preparation only; ordinary appointments keep the overbooking slot. Criterion C6 adjusted before it became a task.
Proof of delivery
- project
- vitalis · Book an exam with preparation confirmation
- commit
- c7d2a10
- verdicts
- 4Met1Partial2Not met2Inconclusive
- sources
- requirement (ClickUp) · spec v3 · code standard v2
- hash
- sha256 9f2c4e…a41b
An attestation is a screen; a report is paper. The conformance report is the immutable record of one attestation: the commit examined, a verdict per criterion with evidence at file:line, the sources that were compared, and a hash so anyone can check later that the document has not changed.
It does what a screen cannot: attach to a contract, go out to the customer, hold up in an audit. It exports as Markdown and PDF, with provenance in the footer — project, commit, who generated it, when, and with which version of the agent.
Only the report carries a hash. The other exports are a reading convenience, and they say so.
Customer stories
We have none yet. When we do, they land here with the name, the company and the permission of whoever said it. An invented testimonial on a page that sells evidence would be the argument taking itself apart.
The fastest way to judge this is to watch it run
The demo runs on fictional data, with no signup and nothing sent anywhere.
No more “that is not what I asked for”
Write to us and we will show how Aferiz speeds up delivery, cuts rework and improves your project’s margin.
What was agreed becomes a criterion, and every delivery shows what it met — without changing the tools your team already uses.
Check the flagged fields before sending.
Message sent
It is saved and on its way to the inbox of the people building the product. The answer comes by email, to the address you gave, usually within two business days. No drip campaign afterwards.
It never left this page
Sending failed and your text is still in the form — nothing was lost. Try again in a moment; if it keeps failing, write straight to contact@aferiz.com.