When this matters
A status report says a feature is done, but the reviewer cannot trace that statement to a release or acceptance decision. Start with the claim you need to check. A ticket, a pull request and a release each establish a different part of the delivery history.
Evidence to bring
- Agreed scope and acceptance criteria, with a baseline date and an accountable owner.
- Work-item identifiers and linked pull requests or commits, including records that could not be matched.
- Release or deployment records for the relevant environment, plus a separate acceptance record.
- Cost inputs for the same period, labelled as recorded amounts, estimates or unknowns.
See which tools connect directly and which import by CSV on the Integrations page. Check integration availability.
How to work through it
- Choose a project, reporting period and question. For example: which agreed capabilities were released and accepted this month?
- Trace each material claim from scope to work item, code change, release and acceptance. Preserve source links and dates; mark absent links as gaps.
- Use ScopeWorth to review the available delivery evidence and cost context. Check mappings and assumptions before sharing a report or evidence package.
- Keep outcome evidence separate. Adoption, revenue and customer benefit need their own measurements; implementation activity alone does not establish them.
An illustrative review
Example figures for illustration.
| Recorded evidence or stated assumption | What it supports |
|---|---|
| Illustrative item SW-42 is marked done and linked to merged pull request #87. | Implementation is supported; deployment and acceptance remain unverified. |
| Release R-12 includes the change in the production environment. | A release claim is supported. This does not prove that acceptance criteria were met. |
| The buyer records acceptance against the agreed criteria. | Acceptance is supported for those criteria; no revenue or adoption claim follows automatically. |
The next decision
Share the supported delivery claim with its sources, and assign an owner to each missing record. Use the same evidence chain in agency client reviews, internal investment reviews and supplier reviews.
What the evidence cannot tell you
Code volume and ticket counts do not measure business value or individual productivity. A missing source record means that a claim is unverified, not that no work happened. ScopeWorth cannot supply an acceptance decision that nobody recorded.
AI analysis in ScopeWorth is optional and billed in credits. Evidence, cost attribution and reports work without it. Compare plans and limits.
Questions about this workflow
What is software delivery evidence?
It is the source record behind a delivery claim: agreed scope, work items, code changes, releases and acceptance. Each record supports a different claim; a merged pull request alone does not prove production delivery.
When is ScopeWorth a fit for delivery evidence?
ScopeWorth fits reviews that need to connect delivery records, scope changes and cost context across tools. Agencies can explain work to clients, in-house teams can review investment, and buyers can review supplier delivery.
How does ScopeWorth differ from Jira or a Git dashboard?
Jira manages work and Git records code changes. ScopeWorth adds a delivery evidence and cost review across available sources. Keep using the source tools to manage work; use the review to explain what their records support.
Can a spreadsheet be enough?
Yes. A small project with a few stable source links may be served by a maintained spreadsheet. Consider ScopeWorth when repeated reviews require reconciling multiple sources, scope changes, costs and evidence gaps.