Strategy decks and CI tell different stories
Launch plans assume green builds, but nobody trusts what regression actually covers.
For product teams
QAlity fits product teams that need shared quality artifacts-not opaque test scripts. PMs record critical user journeys in plain browser steps, QA refines them, and execution reports give everyone the same evidence going into launch reviews.
You own the roadmap and need quality signals everyone can align on.
Launch plans assume green builds, but nobody trusts what regression actually covers.
Tester anecdotes from pilots disappear once the team moves to the next bet.
Teams debate what happened instead of re-running the same journey.
Readable flows beat slide decks-but they have to hold up in CI.
Anchor automation to the bets and KPIs on your roadmap.
From PRD acceptance criteria to a repeatable check before GA.
Protect the KPI journey your current initiative is meant to improve.
Compare variant behavior with the same recorded flow structure.
Document end-to-end paths that span multiple teams in one readable suite.
Yes. Recording captures intent visually while QA refines assertions asynchronously-no engineering ticket required to get started.
Execution reports bookmark outcomes alongside launches-cite pass/fail evidence in stakeholder updates instead of anecdotal beta feedback.
Scheduled reruns prove KPI-bearing journeys remain stable while experimentation continues on the next initiative.
Record the journey behind your current roadmap bet, hand it to QA for polish, and share the execution report in your milestone review.