est reports tend to focus on the problems. They’ll show you the bugs, the failures, maybe a percentage or two about what passed—and that’s useful. But it’s only half the picture.

To really understand how your software is doing, you also need to show what’s working. Otherwise you're making decisions with incomplete information—seeing the obstacles but missing the clear path forward.

Why it's not enough to just report the bugs

There’s nothing wrong with highlighting what’s broken—that’s part of the job. But if your report is just a list of bugs, it’s not telling the whole story. It can make things look worse than they are—like everything’s broken when most of it works fine.

Or worse, it can make things look fine when they’re not. One lonely defect might seem minor, but if it’s a critical failure in a key feature, you’ve got a serious problem hiding in plain sight.

Bug-only reporting can:

• Skew your sense of progress — in either direction
• Make it harder to prioritize fixes or spot gaps in testing
• Leave teams demoralised and stakeholders second-guessing

And if you’re working with outsourced testers who only report bugs (especially if they’re paid per bug), you’re left wondering: what did they actually test? Did they cover everything? Or just log the broken bits?

Why showing what works matters

If you only reporting what’s broken, your team—and your stakeholders—are flying blind. Showing what works isn’t a nice-to-have—it’s how you steer releases with confidence and keep everyone on the same page.

Some people call this "verified functionality"—meaning the features or behaviors that were tested and found to be working. While the terminology is technically precise, it's worth simplifying. Essentially, it just means showing what passed, not just what failed.

It builds real confidence in your release

You can’t greenlight a release just by looking at a list of bugs. You need to know what’s been tested, what passed, and what’s still untested. Without that, you’re guessing. Being able to say, “Yes, this feature was tested and worked as expected” gives teams and stakeholders real assurance. It’s about replacing gut feelings with evidence.

It helps prevent embarrassing post-release bugs

Every team has encountered the inevitable support ticket: “I just found a bug in [really obvious feature].” If your test report only lists what failed, you have no idea whether that feature was ever tested in the first place. By documenting what was tested and passed, you reduce the risk of gaps in coverage and prevent easily avoidable mistakes from reaching production.

It provides an audit trail for critical environments

In some industries—finance, healthcare, anything with legal or safety compliance—you don’t just need to test; you need to prove that you tested. Regulators don’t want a vague list of bugs. They want evidence that all critical systems were checked and worked correctly at the time of testing. Showing what passed is essential for demonstrating due diligence and traceability. It’s not enough to know what broke—you need a clear, documented record of what worked.

It helps teams focus their efforts

When test reports include what worked, testers don’t waste time retesting already-stable features. Instead, they can focus on high-risk areas, untested functionality, or complex scenarios that require more attention. This targeted approach makes better use of everyone’s time—and makes it easier to prioritize when testing time is limited.

It gives everyone a clearer picture of progress

Showing what’s working isn’t just about tracking success—it’s about understanding how far along you are. If 80% of tests have passed, and 20% are still being written or executed, that tells you something meaningful. Just listing bugs doesn’t give that kind of directional insight. When reports highlight verified functionality, they help teams visualize real progress, not just problems.

It makes communication easier

Developers, PMs, execs—everyone wants to know: “How are things looking?” When you can show what was tested and what passed, the conversation shifts from firefighting to strategic planning. It’s no longer about whether there are bugs (there always are), but about whether the important stuff is working.

It keeps everyone aligned

Test reports that clearly show what was tested, what worked, and what didn’t help teams stay aligned on priorities. You avoid duplicated efforts, misunderstandings, and mismatched assumptions about what’s ready to go.

Bottom line: reporting what worked—what was tested and passed—doesn’t just make your reports more complete. It makes your whole development process more efficient, transparent, and demonstrably reliable.

A quick word on RTMs

If you’ve worked in compliance-heavy industries, you’ve probably come across Requirements Traceability Matrices (RTMs). These tools are designed to track which requirements have been tested—and they’re often used to demonstrate due diligence in regulated environments.

They can be helpful, but they’re not the full story.

RTMs can:

• Be time-consuming to maintain
• Create a false sense of completeness ("we tested all the requirements" doesn’t mean the app actually works well)
• Discourage testers from exploring beyond what’s written down

In other words, RTMs might tick the boxes—but they don’t always reflect real-world quality. That’s why it’s so important to supplement formal requirement tracking with clear, contextual reporting that shows what was actually tested and what worked. Even in the most process-heavy environments, reporting needs to go beyond traceability to tell the whole testing story.

Your testing style makes a difference

It’s important to understand that your ability to report clearly on what was tested—and what worked—is closely tied to the way you approach testing in the first place. Some testing styles make it easier to capture meaningful results than others. That’s why choosing the right style of testing isn't just a technical choice—it directly impacts what your test reports can (and can’t) show.

Traditional test case management

You might recognize this approach: fully-scripted test cases, executed step-by-step, marked as pass or fail. It's the classic model of traditional test case management—great for producing clean, auditable reports. But when it comes to actually finding bugs, it can fall short. Sticking rigidly to scripts leaves little room for exploring unexpected issues. It’s neat and orderly, but not always the most insightful.

Exploratory testing

On the other end, you’ve got pure exploratory testing. Testers roam through the product and note what they find. It’s brilliant for uncovering unexpected problems—but documentation can be patchy. What did they try that worked? Depends on what they wrote down.

Testpad’s approach: Pragmatic exploratory testing

We think the best kind of testing uses a pragmatic approach. Testers work from a list of prompts—ideas to try, grouped by feature or scenario. Each prompt is a chance to explore and spot any unknowns. Testers record simple pass/fail results, with notes or bug IDs if needed.

The result? You get the best of both worlds:

• The freedom to find real bugs
• A clear record of what was tested and what worked

Real-time reporting: Don’t wait for the end

A test report shouldn’t be something you throw together right before your stakeholder meeting. Ideally, it’s a live, evolving document that anyone on the team can check in with at any time.

That way:

• Issues can be spotted—and fixed—faster
• Testers know what’s already covered (and don’t waste time redoing it)
• Stakeholders get visibility into what’s working, what’s not, and what’s left to do

Tools like Testpad are built for this kind of workflow. You can see results as they’re added—with prompts, pass/fail marks, notes and issue references—all in a simple, scannable format. It’s not complex visualizations and elaborate multi-page reports. It’s just the info you need, right when you need it.

What a good test report should include

To make your test reporting genuinely useful, make sure it:

• Shows what was tested
• Includes both what worked and what didn’t
• Is updated regularly, not just at the end
• Is easy to read and interpret—even for non-technical folks

If your current reports only tell you what’s broken, they’re not giving you the full picture. By showing what works, you make better decisions, reduce unnecessary work, and help everyone feel a little more in control.

It’s not too much information

Sometimes people worry that showing all test results will be overwhelming. But actually, if presented well, it’s the opposite.

Imagine a dashboard:

• Green check marks where things passed
• Red crosses where problems were found
• Gray for things not yet tested

You instantly get a feel for the health of the product. You can spot problem areas, see what’s been covered, and where testing is still needed. Far from being too much, it’s exactly the right amount of clarity.

Testpad makes that kind of reporting effortless

Test reporting shouldn’t just be about counting bugs. And it shouldn’t stop at pass/fail stats either. The real job of a test report is to tell the story of testing—what was looked at, what worked, what didn’t, and what still needs checking.

If you’re only reporting what went wrong, you’re missing most of that story. Show what was tested. Show what worked. Your stakeholders, your team, and your future self will thank you.

With the right approach to testing documentation, this kind of clear, comprehensive reporting becomes straightforward. Testpad was designed specifically to solve this challenge—experience how it transforms your testing workflow with a 30-day free trial.

If you liked this article, consider sharing