# Inspect pairwise coverage in a small test plan

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: An external toy test plan has three binary factors A,B,C. Its four rows are 000,011,101 and 110. Each pair of factors should include 00,01,10 and 11.

## Decision

All twelve required pair-value combinations appear in the four-row plan. Four of eight full triples are present, so pairwise coverage is not exhaustive triple coverage or proof of fault detection.

## Owned work

- Define the actual factors and values
  - Owner role: Test planner
  - Acceptance evidence: A,B,C are three declared binary factors, not undocumented product fields.
- Enumerate pair coverage
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: Every pair has 00,01,10 and 11 in the authored rows.
- Retain higher-order limits
  - Owner role: Quality lead
  - Acceptance evidence: Missing triples and required targeted tests remain separate planning decisions.

## Workflow

1. Define the actual factors and values. Check: A,B,C are three declared binary factors, not undocumented product fields.
2. Enumerate pair coverage. Check: Every pair has 00,01,10 and 11 in the authored rows.
3. Retain higher-order limits. Check: Missing triples and required targeted tests remain separate planning decisions.

## Judgment

The example is an external test-design worksheet. It does not configure a test runner or establish complete assurance.


## Filled manual planning note

All twelve required pair-value combinations appear in the four-row plan. Four of eight full triples are present, so pairwise coverage is not exhaustive triple coverage or proof of fault detection. Pairs AB,AC and BC each contain four value combinations across these rows:3×4=12 pair obligations. The full binary triple space contains 2³=8 combinations, of which this plan lists four. The example is an external test-design worksheet. It does not configure a test runner or establish complete assurance.


## Workflow questions

### Does pairwise coverage test every triple?

No. This plan has four of the eight triples.

### Does full pair coverage prove no defect remains?

No. Higher-order interactions, state, timing and omitted requirements can still matter.

## Product connection

Use the owned checks and downloaded brief to discuss this planning decision alongside your TeamBoostAI tasks. Confirm available fields, roles and account features separately. The example is manual; it does not calculate live analytics, create work or run an experiment in the product.

Confirm account availability before adopting this manual outline.

## Original worked case

Synthetic records, manual planning only. No account import or live analytics.

### Inspect the invented case records

Row | Factor A | Factor B | Factor C
--- | --- | --- | ---
1 | 0 | 0 | 0
2 | 0 | 1 | 1
3 | 1 | 0 | 1
4 | 1 | 1 | 0

### Reasoning

Pairs AB,AC and BC each contain four value combinations across these rows:3×4=12 pair obligations. The full binary triple space contains 2³=8 combinations, of which this plan lists four.

### Bounded result

All twelve required pair-value combinations appear in the four-row plan. Four of eight full triples are present, so pairwise coverage is not exhaustive triple coverage or proof of fault detection.

### Distinct decision

This verifies a fully inspectable small combination plan, rather than giving a generic regression checklist.

### Limits

The example is an external test-design worksheet. It does not configure a test runner or establish complete assurance.

### Definitions and method context

- NIST combinatorial testing — https://www.nist.gov/publications/combinatorial-testing — Combination-coverage context. Invented review/state examples do not prove full fault coverage, certification or product behavior.