1. Pick one workflow
Don't try to map your entire lab. Choose the one workflow that creates the most recurring pain — the regression suite that takes three days to set up, or the evidence pack that takes your quality manager a week to assemble.
Free diagnostic for embedded test teams
Find the evidence gap your PASS report does not show
Map one HIL, TestStand, LabVIEW, Vector, dSPACE, pytest, or custom-script workflow in 30-45 minutes. See where setup context, tool versions, run logs, and reviewer evidence stop travelling together – before you buy another tool or walk into a review unprepared.
Use this kit if this sounds familiar
- A rerun should take minutes, but takes days because setup context is missing.
- A reviewer sees PASS, then asks which firmware, fixture, model, or script version produced it.
- The evidence exists, but it lives across logs, screenshots, Slack, folders, and one engineer's memory.
- The team is discussing a new tool, but nobody has mapped where the current workflow actually breaks.
Built by an engineer who spent years writing software for functional safety systems in refineries, where a missed test condition costs equipment, not just money.
Time30-45 minutes
ScopeOne workflow
OutputMap, gaps, PoC outline
CostFree
How to use the kit in one sitting
2. Map the tools and handoffs
List every tool that touches the workflow, in execution order. For each boundary between tools, ask: is the context transfer machine-readable or person-dependent? Mark every handoff where a human translates, reformats, or reconstructs data.
3. Score the evidence gaps
For each handoff point, score what evidence is captured today: setup context, firmware and tool versions, run logs, pass/fail reasoning, reviewer notes. Rate each on the Weak-Adequate-Strong scale. Count the gaps. That's your priority list.
4. Decide the next move
Some gaps are small: a missing firmware version field in a TestStand report, fixable in a day. Others are structural: a handoff between stand configuration and orchestration that is entirely manual. The kit helps you tell which is which, so your next purchase or process change addresses the real problem.
Start the check
Find your weakest evidence handoff.
The kit files are public below. Enter your email and we'll send you the full package plus an example of a mapped workflow so you can see what 45 minutes produces. No cold follow-up. No tool migration pitch.
Kit files
Browse files directly
Already want the files? Open the public templates without filling the form.
Workflow map Map actors, setup, tools, run steps, and evidence handoffs. Toolchain handoff map List where context moves between tools or people. Evidence gap scorecard Score setup, version, environment, logs, and reviewer context. PoC scope outline Turn the map into a narrow diagnostic or proof-of-concept scope. GitHub-ready kit README Use this index when mirroring the templates in a public repo or internal wiki.
Use cases
Use the kit for regulated workflow diagnostics.
Automotive HIL
Map your HIL traceability break
Find where setup, version, and evidence context stops surviving across one safety-related HIL workflow.
Aerospace evidenceCheck whether your verification evidence survives review
Map requirement to test to run to review – before the auditor finds the gap.
NI workflowsFind which station/report handoff is losing context
Map station identity, sequence versions, and report gaps across your TestStand workflow.
What to capture
Focus on context that makes a run reproducible.
Setup context
Stand configuration, device state, operator choices, scripts, and fixture assumptions.
Tool handoffs
Where LabVIEW, TestStand, Vector, dSPACE, OpenTAP, pytest, or scripts exchange context.
Review context
Pass/fail reason, evidence location, reviewer notes, and known uncertainty.
Next step
Have one workflow worth mapping together?
Bring the completed kit to a 30-minute workflow review and we will help decide whether the gap is structural, local, or not worth pursuing.