The Skeptic's Guide to DamageBDD Evidence
Ask what ran, what the record proves, which party controls the keys and what still needs testing.
Ask for a reproducible claim
DamageBDD starts with a behaviour someone can describe, execute and inspect. Its value is in reducing ambiguity about a specific result. A skeptic should ask for the scenario, source revision, target, inputs and report, then examine whether those assertions cover the requirement.
Check the boundary of each record
- A test reports observations for its execution; it can miss behaviour outside its scope.
- A hash checks byte identity against a trusted reference; storage availability is separate.
- A signature identifies a signing key; it does not prove the statement is correct.
- A retrieved record needs provenance and relevance checks before supporting an answer.
- A payment needs its own receipt and reconciliation, even when a test passes.
Evaluate one useful workflow
Reproduce a known failure, make a change and inspect the new result. Compare the effort and review quality with the team's existing process. Keep the specification, both reports and any remaining failures together.
The platform map explains the wider stack; the capability matrix records implementation and evidence. The solutions guides propose first demonstrations. Claims of scale, security or automatic settlement need their own results.