Pre-Launch Test-Data Sign-Off Template
Most wealth-tech features ship without a structured attestation that the test corpus was actually fit for purpose. This one-pager closes that loop: engineering, QA, compliance, and product co-sign that the synthetic corpus exercised every required code path before the feature reaches production. Filed with the release record, it becomes audit evidence.
What you walk away with
~12 min · 12 slots · 17 blocks- A one-page sign-off artifact ready for engineering / QA / compliance / product to review and sign.
- An evidence trail tying corpus version, archetype set, and code-path coverage to the release.
- A defensible posture if an examiner asks 'how did you test this?'
Variables
Live document preview
Pre-Launch Test-Data Sign-Off
Feature: [FEATURE_NAME] · Release: [RELEASE_IDENTIFIER] · Target ship date: [TARGET_SHIP_DATE]
Regulator scope: [REGULATOR_SCOPE_IF_ANY_]
1. Test corpus identity
- Corpus version: [CORPUS_VERSION]
- Archetypes exercised: [ARCHETYPES_EXERCISED]
- Code paths tested: [CODE_PATHS_TESTED]
- Code path coverage: [CODE_PATH_COVERAGE_]%
Identify the corpus by version + seed. Reference the version on the WealthSchema dataset page or the firm's internal corpus registry. The version pin is what makes the test reproducible.
2. Code-path coverage
We attest that each material code path in [FEATURE_NAME] was exercised by at least one synthetic household in the test corpus, with the expected disposition documented.
Attach (or link to) the populated Wealth-Tech Test-Data Coverage Matrix worksheet, the populated TLH Test-Case Design worksheet, or whichever coverage artifact applies. Coverage gaps must be remediated or explicitly documented as accepted risk.
- Coverage matrix attached / linked
- Edge cases documented per code path
- Accepted-risk gaps named (with owner + remediation date)
3. Compliance attestation
Per [REGULATOR_SCOPE_IF_ANY_], the synthetic corpus exercises the relevant compliance code paths and produces the audit-trail fields the firm's WSPs require.
- Reg BI suitability fields captured per recommendation event (if applicable)
- AML monitoring rules fire on synthetic typology cases (if applicable)
- GLBA: no real PII / NPI flowed into the test environment
- Form ADV: no representations made in the feature contradict current Form ADV (if applicable)
4. Open issues / accepted risks
[Replace this paragraph with: 'None,' or a numbered list of open issues, the owner, and the close date.]
5. Sign-off
Unfilled slots show as [VARIABLE_NAME] so the partial document still reads. Filling in the form on the left substitutes them inline.
What to do with this
File the signed document with the release record (in the firm's release management system or Git). Reference it from the release notes. Re-issue per release; do not re-use a prior sign-off across releases — the corpus version, code paths, or regulator scope may have changed.
FAQ
Should this go in the release ticket or a separate file?
Either. The structural requirement is that it's discoverable from the release record. A separate file referenced from the release ticket is cleanest for audit but a structured sign-off section in the release ticket itself is acceptable.
Who has approval authority if a signer is unavailable?
Define delegation in your firm's WSPs. The release should not ship without all four sign-offs unless the firm's policy explicitly allows delegation, and the delegate is named on the document.