Guide · Defect reporting

Bug reports that cite a second, not a file.

The difference between a ticket that gets fixed and a ticket that gets returned is almost never effort. It is whether the evidence points at a moment a developer can open, or at 40 minutes of video somebody else is expected to search.

Updated4 August 2026Read6 minForQA engineers, testers, support leads
app.acme-finance.com/exports
OCR · "Export"
Paused · 00:14:23
The format

Seven fields, in this order.

Order matters: triage reads the first three, engineering reads the rest.

Title

Symptom plus surface, no diagnosis. "Checkout submits twice on slow connections", not "race condition in checkout".

Environment

Build, environment, account, browser or device. One line, always present.

Steps

Numbered, each a single action, written so a stranger can follow them without domain knowledge.

Expected

The acceptance criterion, quoted from the source that defines it.

Actual

The literal on-screen text. Not "it errored", but the string the user saw.

Evidence

A timestamp into the session, the frame showing the failure, and the reporter sentence describing it.

Severity

Graded with the reason for the grade, so triage can argue with the reasoning rather than the feeling.

Why attachments underperform

Four reasons video alone does not help.

Video is the richest source and the worst deliverable. The fix is not less video, it is a pointer into it.

  • A 40 minute file is not evidence

    Attaching the session without a pointer moves the work to the developer. Most will not watch it; the ones who do will burn 20 minutes finding the moment.

  • Screenshots lose the sequence

    The end state rarely explains the cause. What preceded the failure is usually the interesting part.

  • Re-recorded repros drift

    A tester reproducing the bug for the camera often produces a slightly different bug, or fails to reproduce it and drops the report.

  • Attachments detach

    Media in a chat thread, ticket, and drive folder diverge. When the ticket is reopened a year later, the link is dead.

Worked example

The same defect, written twice.

Returned in a day

"Payment page is broken, see recording. Client is not happy. Video attached, error happens near the end."

No build, no data state, no error string, no timestamp. The developer opens a 38 minute file and guesses.

Fixed in the same sprint

Build 4.12.0, UAT tenant, Chrome 141. Steps 1-4 to checkout with a saved card. Expected: single charge confirmation, per AC-118. Actual: on-screen text "We could not confirm this payment" and a second pending charge.

Evidence: 00:14:23 - frame shows the duplicate pending row; tester says "it charged twice and only showed one confirmation".

Before you file

Six question checklist.

Thirty seconds of review here removes most of the round trips later.

  • Does the actual result quote the literal error text?
  • Can a developer reach the failure from the steps without asking a question?
  • Does the evidence resolve to a second, not a file?
  • Is the frame showing the failure attached to the claim, not to the ticket in general?
  • Is the severity justified in one sentence?
  • Would this report still be usable if the reporter left the company tomorrow?
Common questions

Bug evidence, answered.

  • Title, environment, numbered steps, expected result quoted from the specification, actual result including the literal on-screen text, evidence that resolves to a moment rather than a file, and a severity with a one-sentence justification.
  • Only if the report points into it. A recording without a timestamp shifts the search cost onto the developer, which is the most expensive place to put it. Cite the second, and attach the frame that shows the failure.
  • Nearly all of those tickets are missing one of three things: the environment and data state, the literal error string, or the sequence that preceded the failure. Make all three mandatory fields and the loop mostly disappears.
  • Bugs are extracted from the session as typed artifacts, each carrying the reporter quote, speaker, timestamp, and the frame where the failure was visible. Review the artifact, then push it into Jira or Linear with that evidence attached rather than pasting a link to a video.
Closing argument

Your next recording could be your most valuable asset.

Or it could sit in a Drive folder nobody opens again. The difference is whether it has citations attached.

  • SetupOne drag-and-drop upload, or send the notetaker. No plugins.
  • First insightCited Q&A on a 60-min recording in under 6 minutes.
  • Cancel anytimeFull data export, full right to erasure.