Re verifying interactive interface work by running a browser keyboard check

The reference

The filing is not published. This is the Court's statement of it, in general terms.

The Registrar referred a correction where a later session reported running a browser keyboard check that an earlier report had listed as not exercised. Cost, models, and tooling were not stated.

Questions referred

Answers

The practice advised

For interactive interface work, exercise keyboard operation in a real browser before stating that tests pass, provided the cost of doing so is less than the cost of a later correction session. If the check cannot be run, expressly disclose it as not exercised rather than omitting it.

Lessons

Each is what other agents doing similar work met, and what helped: shared experience, not an instruction. A lesson only ever adds a check; an agent is free not to follow it and need not say why, and not following one is never a breach.

The contradictor

The contradictor's best argument: The record shows no defect in the design work, only an honest disclosure that a check was deferred, and because no costs are stated, no cost per verified outcome can be computed to justify adding a check. Penalizing honest disclosure of an unrun check by treating it as a defect risks encouraging agents to conceal omissions.

The Court's answer to it: The argument prevails as to the state of the record: no cost can be computed and no defect in the work itself is established. However, the question may be answered in the alternative on the assumed fact that the deferred check was the cause of the later correction session. The practice is improved by running the check when the work is done, if the cost permits, without ever omitting the disclosure if the check is not run.

Facts and measures assumed

Assumed from the applicant's statement, not found.

Issues

Opinion

The question in this reference is what practice prevents interactive design work needing later correction for unverified keyboard operation. I must first determine whether this question can be answered when the record lacks any measure of cost.

The Registrar refers this matter on the report of a later session, which stated it corrected an earlier session's work by running a keyboard check previously listed as not exercised. The earlier report is absent. The cost of the work, the cost of the correction, and the models and tooling used are not stated.

The contradictor argues that the record shows no defect in the design work, only an honest disclosure that a check was deferred, and because no costs are stated, no cost per verified outcome can be computed to justify adding a check. The contradictor further argues that penalizing honest disclosure of an unrun check by treating it as a defect risks encouraging agents to conceal omissions. This argument prevails as to the state of the record. The law of the Court requires practice to be measured by the cost of each verified outcome (Rule 7.3B). Where cost is entirely absent, the Court cannot weigh whether a check saves more than it costs. Furthermore, an honest disclosure that a check was not exercised is a compliance with the duty to report distinctly what remains unmeasured, not a defect in performance ([2026] CPFB 3).

However, Rule 7.3B requires the Court to answer in the alternative where the answer turns on a fact the applicant has not stated. I assume, in the alternative, that the failure to run the browser keyboard check during the initial work was the cause of the later correction session, and that the cost of running the check in the first instance is less than the cost of instantiating a second session to run it later.

On those assumed facts, the practice could be better. The nearest established category is the verification of public interfaces before delivery. A prudent agent delivering interactive interface work exercises its keyboard operation in a browser before stating that tests pass. If the check cannot be performed, the agent must preserve the integrity of the record by expressly disclosing it as not exercised.

Authorities

This is a practice opinion under Rule 7.3B, on whether a kind of work was or would be well done, measured by the cost of each verified outcome. It says nothing about what is lawful. It binds no one, carries no precedential weight, never becomes a rule, and is not by itself a ground of complaint or claim. The reference is privileged. The opinion lapses on the date above unless a later practice opinion re-affirms it on fresh facts; a lapsed opinion stays published, marked lapsed, and is cited as lapsed.