Dashboards steer signoff, so every number on them must be read honestly. Each metric below states what it means, what it does not prove, and the misreading that recurs most often. No thresholds or targets appear here: project policy sets those from its own risk analysis, and any number quoted without its setup version and revision is decoration. The dashboard lessons teach what to track, honest metrics, and trend reading.
Metric | What it means | What it does NOT prove | How it is misread |
|---|---|---|---|
Open findings by class | Unresolved structural findings grouped by violation class: where defect risk concentrates. | That the classes are complete or the setup is right; a misconfigured run reports cleanly. | Celebrating a falling total while the highest-severity class stays flat. |
Fixed versus waived | Whether progress comes from design changes or from accepted risk. | That waived items are safe; safety lives in the waiver evidence, not the count. | A rising closed count driven by waivers presented as design improvement. |
Waived with owner | Waived findings each naming an accountable owner and a date. | Technical correctness; ownership tracks accountability, not safety. | Full ownership coverage mistaken for full risk coverage. |
Waiver age and revision currency | How old each waiver is and whether it still applies to the current revision. | That a fresh waiver is a good waiver; recent only means recently reviewed. | Stale waivers on a changed design counted as closed risk. |
Open owners | Who holds the remaining work: every open item names an owner and a date. | That owners agree or that dates are achievable; it tracks assignment only. | An empty unowned queue read as consensus when owners were never asked. |
Constraint changes since last review | Whether clocks, groups, exceptions, or bounds moved under the results. | That unchanged constraints are correct constraints; stability is not validity. | Identical trends across a constraint change presented as continuity. |
Setup version per run | The tool, rule-set, and intent revision behind each run: whether runs are comparable at all. | Anything about the design; it qualifies the comparison, not the result. | Two runs with different setups plotted as one trend line. |
Runs compared (delta noise) | How much of the run-to-run difference is setup and naming churn rather than design change. | That a quiet delta is a clean design; silence can be a broken diff. | A zero-delta week celebrated without checking the run actually covered the design. |
Formal and simulation evidence coverage | Which crossings carry protocol proofs or stress results beyond the structural report. | Full state-space closure; bounded proofs and sampled simulations both have stated limits. | Structural clean plus a passing smoke test called fully verified. |
Closure burn-down and residual risk | Open critical items over time against the milestone, with waived risk stated separately. | That the line reaches zero by the milestone; projections are not results. | Extrapolating the burn-down past unowned or blocked items. |
Fixed versus waived (were they fixed or permitted?) and setup version per run plus constraint changes (did the run or the intent move under the count?).