Using the wrong review type wastes time or misses critical defects
Running a full formal inspection on a two-line user story is overkill — it wastes senior team members' time on something a quick peer check could handle. But applying only an informal review to safety-critical avionics requirements is reckless — it lacks the rigour needed to catch life-threatening defects.
CTFL defines four review types with increasing levels of formality. Choosing the right type for the right work product is a core skill for testers.
// example: airbnb — matching review formality to risk
Review Types — CTFL 4.0.1
Informal Review
No defined process. Ad-hoc peer check. The author asks a colleague to look at the work. No formal documentation of findings. Quick and flexible. Good for early drafts and low-risk artefacts.
Walkthrough
The author leads the review. Author presents the work product step by step. Participants ask questions and raise issues. Objectives include learning, gaining consensus, and finding defects. May be informal with a meeting agenda and notes.
Technical Review
A documented, defined review process. A trained moderator may lead (but not necessarily the author). Focus is on technical correctness, design quality, and standard compliance. Findings are formally logged. Defect reports are produced.
Inspection
The most formal review type. Defined roles: author, moderator (facilitates, not the author), reviewers, scribe (logs defects). Formal entry and exit criteria. Follows a structured process: planning → kick-off → individual preparation → review meeting → rework → follow-up. Metrics are collected. Used for high-risk, safety-critical, or contractually required artefacts.
Key Roles in Reviews
- Author — created the work product; performs rework after review
- Moderator — facilitates the review process; not the author in formal reviews
- Reviewer — examines the work product and identifies issues
- Scribe (Recorder) — documents defects and decisions during the review meeting
- Manager — responsible for review planning and resourcing
// tip: Exam Tip: Inspections are the MOST formal review type. They have defined roles including a moderator who is NOT the author, a scribe who logs defects, formal entry/exit criteria, and follow-up verification of rework. If a question describes "defined roles, checklists, and formal documentation," the answer is inspection.
Generic Review Process — Step by Step
Formal reviews (technical reviews and inspections) follow a defined process:
| Step | Activity | Who | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Planning | Define scope, objectives, participants, schedule, entry criteria | Manager / Moderator | Review plan |
| 2. Kick-off | Distribute work product and checklists; explain objectives and process | Moderator | Briefed review team |
| 3. Individual Preparation | Each reviewer examines the work product independently and notes potential defects | Reviewers | Individual defect lists |
| 4. Review Meeting | Discuss findings, classify defects, make decisions (accept, reject, rework) | All participants | Defect log, decisions |
| 5. Rework | Author corrects defects based on meeting decisions | Author | Updated work product |
| 6. Follow-up | Moderator verifies rework is complete and exit criteria are met | Moderator | Completed review record |
Formality
High
Led by
Trained moderator (NOT author)
Preparation
Required (individual prep phase)
Defect logging
Formal defect log with metrics
Entry/exit criteria
Formally defined and verified
Best for
Safety-critical, regulated, high-risk artefacts
// Review process steps
Planning: scope, participants, schedule
Kick-off: distribute materials, explain process
Individual preparation: reviewers examine independently
Review meeting: discuss, classify, decide
Rework: author fixes defects
Follow-up: moderator verifies completion
// Key roles in inspections
Author
Created work product; performs rework
Moderator
Facilitates review; NOT the author in formal reviews
Reviewer
Examines work product; identifies issues
Scribe
Documents defects and decisions during meeting
Manager
Plans and resources the review
// Exam trap
Inspections require a moderator who is NOT the author. If a question describes "defined roles, checklists, formal entry/exit", the answer is inspection.
Review Types Compared
| Characteristic | Informal | Walkthrough | Technical Review | Inspection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formality | None | Low | Medium | High |
| Led by | Author (optional) | Author | Trained moderator | Trained moderator (not author) |
| Preparation | None required | Optional | Required | Required (individual prep phase) |
| Defect logging | Informal notes | Notes/minutes | Formal defect list | Formal defect log with metrics |
| Entry/exit criteria | None | None | Defined | Formally defined and verified |
| Best for | Early drafts, low-risk | Requirements, learning | Designs, architecture | Safety-critical, regulated artefacts |
// warning: Exam Trap: "The author always leads the review." This is only true for walkthroughs. In technical reviews and inspections, a trained moderator leads the review — specifically to reduce author bias. The author participates but does not facilitate. The exam will test this distinction.
Exam Practice Questions
// ctfl 4.0.1 style — select an answer to reveal explanation