Logo
CIO Dashboard/User Stories/QA & Delivery Quality

QA & Delivery Quality View

Testing coverage, defect trends, automation metrics, and delivery quality scores across UAT and N2P environments

Last updated: 13 May 2026, 07:45 IST

UAT Environment Metrics

Stories for Testing

130

Received by QA

6% vs last period

Scenarios Created

412

Test scenarios written

8% vs last period

Scenarios Automated

287

69.7% automation rate

12% vs last period

Regression Test Runs

18

Regression cycles run

5% vs last period

Reported Issues - UAT

38

Total UAT defects

8% vs last period
Miss rate rising

Functionality Miss - UAT

6

Critical misses in UAT

15% vs last period

Bugs Injected - UAT

14

New bugs from release

5% vs last period

Delivery Quality - UAT

76.4%

Weighted quality score

4% vs last period

N2P Environment Metrics

Reported Issues - N2P

12

Total N2P defects

10% vs last period

Functionality Miss - N2P

3

Misses in N2P

0% vs last period

Bugs Injected - N2P

5

Bugs found in N2P

15% vs last period

Delivery Quality - N2P

83.1%

N2P quality score

6% vs last period

Calculated KPIs

Test Scenario Coverage

3.17x

412 scenarios / 130 stories

8% vs last period

Test Automation Coverage

69.7%

287 / 412 scenarios

12% vs last period

UAT Defect Density

0.29

38 defects / 130 stories

8% vs last period

N2P Defect Density

0.09

12 defects / 130 stories

10% vs last period

Defect Leakage

24.0%

(12+0) / (38+12) total

5% vs last period
Above 5% threshold

Functionality Miss Rate

6.9%

9 misses / 130 stories

10% vs last period

Bug Injection Rate

14.6%

19 bugs / 130 delivered

5% vs last period

Delivery Quality Score

79.8%

Weighted composite score

5% vs last period

QA Funnel

Stories received → scenarios → automated → UAT tested → N2P passed

Stories Received for Testing
130
100%
Scenarios Created
412
317%
Scenarios Automated
287
221%
UAT Tested
130
100%
UAT Issues Resolved
92
71%
N2P Passed
118
91%

Test Scenario Coverage

Stories tested vs scenarios created vs automated — monthly trend

Automation Coverage Trend

Automated scenarios % vs 70% target — monthly rolling

UAT Defect Trend

Reported issues, functionality misses, and bugs injected in UAT

N2P Defect Trend

Reported issues, functionality misses, and bugs injected in N2P

Functionality Miss Trend

UAT and N2P functionality misses — monthly comparison

Bugs Injected Trend

Bugs introduced by release in UAT and N2P with injection rate %

Defect Leakage Chart

N2P + post-live defects / total defects vs 20% target

Delivery Quality Scorecard

Composite quality metrics across UAT and N2P — targets and status

MetricUATN2PTargetStatus
Delivery Quality Score76.4%83.1%85%⚠ Near Target
Test Scenario Coverage3.17x3.17x3.0x✓ On Track
Automation Coverage69.7%69.7%70%⚠ Near Target
Defect Density0.290.090.20⚠ Near Target
Defect Leakage24.0%20%✗ Below Target
Functionality Miss Rate4.6%2.3%3%✗ Below Target
Bug Injection Rate10.8%3.8%10%⚠ Near Target
Regression Test Runs1818≥15✓ On Track

Calculated KPI Definitions

Formulas used to derive each quality metric

Test Scenario Coverage

Scenarios Created ÷ Stories Received for Testing

Test Automation Coverage

Automated Scenarios ÷ Total Scenarios Created

UAT Defect Density

UAT Defects ÷ User Stories Tested

N2P Defect Density

N2P Defects ÷ User Stories Tested

Defect Leakage

(N2P Defects + Post-Live Defects) ÷ Total Defects

Functionality Miss Rate

Functionality Misses ÷ User Stories Tested

Bug Injection Rate

Bugs Injected ÷ User Stories Delivered

Delivery Quality Score

Weighted score: severity + coverage + leakage + automation