Use security evidence in a launch decision
Connect review findings, untested paths, fixes, and rollback plans to a clear launch decision. Use a readiness record without a false secure badge.
A launch decision should use security evidence, not just a report date. Confirm that the reviewed build matches the release, important fixes are deployed, and unresolved risks have an owner. Then decide whether to launch, reduce scope, or hold a specific feature.
This is a proposed readiness record for a software team. It is not a certification or a universal release policy. The person accountable for the product must make the decision using the team's requirements and the consequences of failure.
What belongs in the readiness record?
| Decision input | Evidence to attach |
|---|---|
| Reviewed version | Commit, deployment, and relevant configuration |
| Fixed findings | Retest result on the intended release |
| Open findings | Impact, owner, mitigation, and decision |
| Untested behavior | Specific coverage gap and reason |
| Permission changes | New roles, sharing paths, or integrations |
| Operational readiness | Monitoring, rollback, and incident contact |
| Release decision | Named owner, date, conditions, and scope |
Do not turn every empty field into a green check. “Unknown” is useful when it names the missing fact and the action required to resolve it.
How do changes invalidate earlier evidence?
Compare the release diff with the review scope. A cosmetic text change may not affect an authorization result. A new export worker, tenant filter, or token-handling path can. Ask which tested assumptions changed rather than assuming that every commit requires a complete new review.
If a fix exists only in a branch, it is not evidence for the production deployment. Verify the actual build and configuration. Keep the deployment record connected to the retest.
The OWASP testing framework treats security testing as part of development rather than a one-time event. Your readiness process should preserve that connection without treating one assessment as permanent assurance.
How can a team launch with clear limits?
Sometimes the right decision is to disable one unresolved feature while shipping the rest. Record the boundary and confirm that the feature is actually unavailable through both the UI and direct server paths.
Sometimes the missing evidence concerns a critical customer boundary. In that case, a launch deadline does not resolve the uncertainty. Assign the specific test or repair needed for a decision.
After launch, record changes that trigger another review and keep the relevant regression tests running. Discuss a focused pre-launch review with Sourced when you need evidence tied to the decisions your engineering team must make.
Know what you will get from a review
Explore an illustrative finding with evidence, a proposed fix and retest criteria. Discuss your systems, review questions and deadline when you are ready.