Learning
Technical notes for embedded test workflow evidence
Use these notes to understand one workflow problem at a time before changing tools or starting a larger implementation.
So You're Building a Rocket. Your First System Is the Test System.
A launch is a terrible first integration test. What rocketry teaches about building test infrastructure before you need it – and what happens when you don't.
compliance / CRAFrom Pass/Fail to Defensible Evidence: What the EU Cyber Resilience Act Means for Your Test Workflows
In our experience, most embedded test workflows are not ready for what the CRA requires for traceable test evidence.
cicd / devopsYour Test Framework Should Be a REST API, Not a Desktop App
Why CI/CD and LabVIEW/TestStand don't mix – 322 forum posts, 793 pain rows, and $220K/year in handoff tax. A case study in what breaks when test tools are desktop-first.
management / orchestrationThe Handoff Tax: Why Your Embedded Test Team Loses 20-40% of Its Engineering Budget Between Tools
Every tool boundary, every specialist dependency, every compliance deadline – the hidden cost of handoffs in embedded test. What it is, why it compounds, and what to do before December 2027.
architecture / orchestrationYour tools work fine. The handoffs between them are the problem.
A six-layer way of seeing an embedded test workflow – from physical devices to test evidence – that makes handoff gaps visible and closable, without replacing any tool.
evidence-pack / exportYour export pipeline is lying to you. Not about the result – about the evidence.
Exporting test results to XML, CSV, or PostgreSQL preserves data but drops the context engineers need to trust results six months later. Map one workflow's evidence chain.
evidence-pack / embedded-test-workflowThe difference between test logs and trusted evidence
A test log records what happened. A trusted evidence pack preserves enough setup, run, and review context to make the result useful later.
workflow-mapping / exampleExample: mapping one embedded HIL workflow [fictitious]
A fictitious but realistic walkthrough of mapping one embedded HIL workflow – showing where setup, tool handoffs, and evidence context get lost.
hil-sil / repeatabilityWhy HIL test repeatability is a workflow problem
HIL repeatability depends on more than the simulator. Setup, versions, environment, operator steps, and evidence handoffs all affect trust.
labview-teststand / tool-handoffWhere LabVIEW and TestStand handoffs lose workflow context
LabVIEW and TestStand can remain valuable tools while the workflow around them still loses setup, evidence, and review context.
labview / vectorLabVIEW + Vector CANoe: when two strong tools don't talk
Both tools are capable on their own. The problem is the handoff between them – and it is a problem that repeats in labs everywhere.
test-tool-migration / workflow-mappingMap one test workflow before replacing another tool
Before a test tool migration, map one workflow to see whether the real problem is setup, handoff, evidence, or repeatability.
diagnostic-workshop / paid-diagnosticWhat a paid workflow diagnostic should deliver
A paid diagnostic is a narrow, time-boxed exercise. Here is what you should expect before committing: inputs, outputs, duration, price test, and decision criteria.
embedded-test-workflow / tool-handoffWhy embedded test labs fail between tools
Most embedded test labs do not have a missing-tool problem. They have a between-tool problem – and replacing one tool rarely fixes it.