A sample validation package

What would it take to trust this test?

Suppose a BMS must detect a simulated cell crossing 4.25 V, assert its fault output, and issue a contactor-open command within 100 milliseconds. The requirement sounds clear. The path from that sentence to a bench everyone can review usually is not.

Open the four sample artifacts ↓

Open the package

This is what the team can review.

Open each representative artifact to see how the same requirement stays connected across disciplines.

Artifact 1 of 4

The requirement becomes a test contract.

The team can review the pass condition and evidence before anyone builds automation around it.

TC-BMS-REQ-002 · Over-voltage fault responseDraft for review

Source

BMS System Requirements v0.3 · Section 5.1.4

Review owner

Systems engineering · Safety review required before execution

Requirement

Assert an over-voltage fault and command contactor open when simulated cell voltage exceeds the configured threshold.

Acceptance

At t0, simulated cell voltage crosses 4.25 V. BMS_FAULT_N assertion and the CAN contactor-open command must each be observed within 100 ms of t0. Physical contactor movement is outside this test.

Instrumentation

Cell simulator, logic analyzer or DAQ, and CAN interface.

Expected evidence

fault_timing_capture.csv
can_fault_log.asc

Failures are separated into DUT behavior, bench/setup problems, automation failures, or requirement ambiguity.

The actual problem

The test is not hard because the procedure has five steps. It is hard because the assumptions live in five different places.

01
The requirement lives in a system document.
02
The signal and return paths live in a schematic or pin map.
03
The instrument limits live in manuals and bench notes.
04
The safe starting state lives in a procedure, or in someone's memory.
05
The evidence format gets decided after the test has already run.

A good automation script cannot rescue a test whose inputs, limits, and evidence contract were never settled. Long Game organizes those decisions before the team spends time wiring a bench, buying equipment, or debugging the wrong failure.

How the work comes together

Three decisions that unblock execution.

The point is not to generate more documents. It is to get hardware, firmware, test, and safety owners looking at the same decisions before execution.

Define what counts

Turn the requirement into a test case with an acceptance criterion, named evidence, required instrumentation, and failure categories.

Output: verification plan

Make the bench reviewable

Lay out the instruments, control interfaces, calibration needs, connectors, limits, and unresolved procurement details.

Output: bench and equipment package

Prepare the handoff

Bind approved source and return points to the test, carry the safety gates forward, and state exactly what evidence the operator must collect.

Output: context pack and operator brief

What changes for the team

The next engineer starts with context, not oral history.

Ready for review

The requirement, test case, and evidence names agree.
Equipment needs and unresolved purchases are visible.
Wiring records carry source, destination, return, revision, and finite limits.
Safety gates appear in the plan and the operator brief.

Still blocked until resolved

A required connector or instrument model has not been selected.
The schematic revision has changed since review.
An endpoint, return path, limit, or approval is missing.
Preflight or safe-state verification fails on the real bench.

A practical way to start

Bring one workflow your team is tired of rebuilding from memory.

Long Game will map the current process, clean up the source package, produce the reviewable artifacts, and give you an honest list of what must change before automation is worth building.

Current workflow map
Cleaned source package
Reviewable artifact set
Prioritized automation blockers

Two weeksOne bounded workflowRemote-first

Scope one workflow