Good map – good for exploring and testing if anything is missing…

[ Albert’s reply. Thank you, Simon. This mindmap, as it’s sister map, is originated from the Rapid Software Testing heuristics. I “applied” context-revealing questions on it and mindmapped the result. ]

Some standards fall under “Laws and Regulations” or “Service Agreements” – e.g. EMC directives. But what about services and products that haven’t been standardised yet, eg various IETF RFC’s – these might come under “documentation claims” but could be very important – and not a “low threat”.

[ Albert’s reply. As “De Facto Claims – UI Standards” I meant things like expecting a control looking like a button functioning like a button. As for the standards you mention, “EMC directives”/”RFCs” – they definitely should go under “Legal Claims” or “Published Claims”.
Overall, it’s a heuristic, it’s fallible! There are exceptions, and it requires skills and experience to apply. ]

Could be a future WT topic to test “claims testing”?

[ Albert’s reply. Darren McMillan held one. We may get to it at WTAmericas as well. ]