Work Products Examinable by Static Testing refers to various documents and artifacts that can be reviewed and analyzed without executing code or running the software. In ISTQB CTFL, static testing focuses on examining these work products to identify defects early in the development lifecycle.

Key work products examinable by static testing include:

1. Requirements Documentation: Requirements specifications, user stories, and acceptance criteria are examined to ensure clarity, completeness, consistency, and testability. Reviews can identify ambiguous or conflicting requirements before development begins.

2. Design Documents: Architecture and design specifications are analyzed for correctness, feasibility, and adherence to standards. Static testing ensures design documents are comprehensive and properly structured.

3. Source Code: Code reviews examine the code for defects, security vulnerabilities, coding standard violations, and logical errors without execution. This includes checking algorithm correctness and implementation quality.

4. Test Cases and Test Plans: Test documentation is reviewed for completeness, coverage adequacy, and traceability to requirements. This ensures test cases effectively address all specified requirements.

5. Configuration and Build Files: Scripts, configuration files, and build automation are reviewed to verify correctness and prevent deployment issues.

6. Documentation: User manuals, help files, and operational procedures are examined for accuracy, clarity, and consistency with the actual software.

7. Change Records and Traceability Matrices: These documents are reviewed to ensure proper impact analysis and requirement coverage.

Static testing of these work products offers significant benefits: early defect detection reduces costs, improves product quality, prevents defects from propagating to later stages, and provides documentation of quality assurance activities. By examining work products before execution, organizations can identify and correct issues efficiently, making static testing a cost-effective quality assurance practice in the software development lifecycle.

Static testing is a crucial quality assurance practice that examines software artifacts without executing the code. Its value is significant in the ISTQB Foundation Level framework for several reasons. First, static testing enables early detection of defects during the development lifecycle, particularly in requirements, design documents, and code reviews. This early identification reduces the cost of fixing defects, as addressing issues during initial phases is considerably cheaper than fixing them in later stages or after deployment. Second, static testing improves code quality by identifying potential vulnerabilities, coding standard violations, and logical inconsistencies before testing execution begins. This proactive approach enhances overall software reliability and maintainability. Third, static testing techniques such as reviews, inspections, and walkthroughs facilitate knowledge sharing among team members, improving team competency and reducing individual dependencies. Fourth, static testing helps ensure compliance with industry standards, regulations, and organizational policies without requiring test execution environments. Fifth, it provides better test coverage planning by identifying gaps in requirements and design documents that dynamic testing might miss. Sixth, static testing reduces testing cycle time by preventing defective code from reaching the dynamic testing phase, thereby allowing testers to focus on more complex scenarios. Additionally, static testing supports documentation quality assurance, ensuring that specifications and user manuals are accurate, complete, and understandable. The technique also helps identify security vulnerabilities and architectural flaws early in the development process. Finally, static testing promotes a culture of quality within organizations by encouraging developers to write better code and produce comprehensive documentation from the start. Overall, static testing serves as a cost-effective, preventive measure that significantly enhances software quality, reduces rework efforts, and contributes to delivering reliable, maintainable, and secure software products to end-users within expected timelines and budgets.

Static Testing and Dynamic Testing are two fundamental approaches to quality assurance, each with distinct characteristics and purposes. Static Testing involves examining software artifacts without executing the code. It includes activities like reviews, inspections, and walkthroughs of requirements, design documents, and source code. Static testing can identify defects early in the development lifecycle, before code execution, making it cost-effective. It focuses on finding issues such as design flaws, incomplete specifications, and coding standard violations. No test environment or test data is required, and it can be performed by various team members including business analysts and developers. Dynamic Testing, conversely, requires code execution and involves running the software with test data to observe its behavior. It includes techniques like unit testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. Dynamic testing validates actual system functionality against expected behavior and can uncover defects that only manifest during execution, such as runtime errors, memory leaks, and performance issues. Dynamic testing requires a complete or partial working system, appropriate test environment, and carefully designed test data. The key differences include timing: static testing occurs earlier in development, while dynamic testing happens after code is written. Coverage differs too; static testing examines all code paths theoretically, whereas dynamic testing can only cover executed paths. Cost implications vary: static testing is generally more cost-effective for early defect detection, while dynamic testing is essential for validating actual system behavior. Both approaches are complementary and necessary for comprehensive quality assurance. Static testing prevents defects from being introduced, while dynamic testing detects defects that escaped static analysis. Modern testing strategies employ both methods throughout the software development lifecycle. The ISTQB Foundation Level emphasizes that effective quality assurance requires integrating both static and dynamic testing approaches to maximize defect detection and ensure software reliability and quality.

Early and frequent stakeholder feedback in static testing offers significant benefits throughout the software development lifecycle. First, it enables the identification and correction of defects at the earliest stages of development, before code is even written. This proactive approach is considerably more cost-effective than finding and fixing bugs in later testing phases, as the cost of defect correction increases exponentially as development progresses. Second, early feedback ensures that requirements are clearly understood and agreed upon by all parties. Stakeholders can review and validate requirements documents, design specifications, and other artifacts, preventing misunderstandings that could lead to rework and project delays. Third, frequent stakeholder involvement promotes alignment between development teams and business objectives. By gathering feedback regularly, teams can adjust their approach to ensure the final product meets stakeholder expectations and organizational goals. Fourth, static testing reviews with stakeholder participation improve product quality by incorporating diverse perspectives and domain expertise. Stakeholders can identify potential issues, suggest improvements, and validate that quality standards are being met. Fifth, early feedback reduces project risks by addressing critical issues before they impact development schedules or budgets. Identifying scope creep, architectural flaws, or compliance issues early allows teams to manage risks proactively. Sixth, this collaborative approach fosters better communication and trust between stakeholders and development teams, creating a shared sense of ownership and responsibility for project success. Finally, early and frequent feedback promotes continuous improvement by establishing a feedback loop that helps teams learn from each review cycle, optimizing processes and practices. Overall, integrating stakeholder feedback throughout static testing phases enhances product quality, reduces costs, minimizes risks, and ensures successful project outcomes aligned with stakeholder expectations.

The Review Process Activities in Static Testing, as per ISTQB Foundation Level, comprise a structured set of phases that ensure comprehensive evaluation of work products without code execution. The review process typically includes five main activities: Planning, Kickoff, Individual Review, Issues Discussion, and Rework & Follow-up.

Planning involves defining the review's scope, objectives, and participants. Reviewers and authors are identified, review materials are prepared, and entry criteria are verified to ensure readiness. This phase establishes the foundation for effective reviews.

Kickoff is a brief meeting where the review's purpose is communicated to all participants. The author provides context about the work product, review criteria are clarified, and roles are assigned. This ensures everyone understands expectations and maintains consistency.

Individual Review is where each reviewer independently examines the work product against defined criteria. Reviewers document findings, identify defects, and note issues without discussion. This phase promotes objective evaluation and prevents groupthink.

Issues Discussion involves the review team meeting to discuss identified issues collaboratively. The review leader facilitates discussions, clarifies findings, and determines severity levels. Issues are categorized, and consensus is reached on required actions. Open communication helps validate findings and prioritize resolutions.

Rework & Follow-up is the final phase where the author addresses identified issues and implements corrections. A designated reviewer verifies that rework meets acceptance criteria. Exit criteria are confirmed, and review metrics are collected for process improvement.

Throughout these activities, clear roles are maintained: the author presents work, reviewers evaluate it, the review leader coordinates proceedings, and the scribe documents findings. Effective communication, proper documentation, and adherence to entry and exit criteria ensure that review process activities deliver their intended quality assurance benefits.

In ISTQB Foundation Level Static Testing, reviews involve several key roles, each with distinct responsibilities essential for effective quality assurance. The Manager is responsible for planning and resourcing the review process, deciding whether to conduct a review, and measuring review effectiveness. They ensure adequate time and budget allocation for review activities. The Author is the creator of the work product under review. Their responsibility includes fixing defects found during the review and implementing improvements suggested by reviewers. The Author should remain open to constructive feedback while clarifying any points about their work. The Moderator (or Review Leader) plans and coordinates the review process. They schedule review meetings, distribute materials, manage time allocation, and facilitate discussions. The Moderator ensures all participants follow the review procedure and maintain a constructive atmosphere focused on defect detection rather than criticism. They also ensure findings are documented and tracked. The Reviewer (or Inspector) examines the work product systematically to identify defects, improvements, and questions. Reviewers should have relevant expertise and sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate the material. They maintain objectivity and professionalism, contributing constructively to the review meeting. The Scribe (or Recorder) documents all findings, decisions, and action items during the review. They record defects identified, recommendations, and issues raised, ensuring accurate and complete documentation for later reference and follow-up. In some reviews, the Recorder may be the Moderator or an assigned individual. These roles may overlap or be combined in informal reviews, but in formal inspection processes, they remain distinct. Effective role definition and clear responsibility assignment significantly improve review quality, ensure consistent defect detection, and promote a positive review culture focused on quality improvement rather than individual criticism.

Review Types in static testing are categorized based on their formality level, each serving distinct purposes in the software development lifecycle. Understanding these types is crucial for ISTQB Foundation Level certification.

**Informal Review:**
The most basic form of review with minimal process and documentation. It involves developers or team members casually examining code or documents without a structured approach. While quick and cost-effective, it lacks formal records and may miss critical issues. It's suitable for small changes or initial feedback.

**Walkthrough:**
A semi-formal review where the author guides colleagues through the document or code. The author explains the work, and participants provide feedback. Walkthroughs are educational, help identify issues, and improve team knowledge. They require minimal preparation but still lack the rigor of formal inspections.

**Technical Review:**
A more formal type conducted by technical experts who examine work products against technical standards and specifications. These reviews focus on identifying defects, checking compliance with standards, and ensuring technical quality. Documentation is maintained, making them more traceable than walkthroughs.

**Inspection:**
The most formal review type with defined roles, procedures, and strict documentation. It follows a structured process including planning, kick-off, preparation, examination, rework, and follow-up. Inspections are highly effective at detecting defects early and have measurable metrics. They require significant time investment but provide maximum quality assurance benefits.

**Each review type varies in:**
- Formality and structure
- Resource requirements
- Effectiveness at finding defects
- Documentation level
- Participant involvement

Organizations select review types based on risk levels, project criticality, and available resources. Critical systems often employ inspections, while routine updates might use informal reviews. Combining multiple review types creates a comprehensive quality assurance strategy, ensuring comprehensive defect detection throughout the development process.

Success Factors for Reviews in ISTQB are critical elements that ensure reviews effectively identify defects and improve software quality. Understanding these factors is essential for foundation-level testers.

Key Success Factors include:

1. Clear Objectives: Reviews must have well-defined goals, such as identifying defects, assessing compliance, or verifying completeness. Clear objectives guide reviewers and ensure focused examination of work products.

2. Appropriate Scope: The review scope should be clearly defined, covering only relevant portions of the work product. This prevents reviews from becoming too broad or unfocused, ensuring efficient use of reviewer time.

3. Right Participants: Including appropriate stakeholders with diverse perspectives strengthens reviews. Participants should include authors, reviewers, and other relevant personnel who can provide valuable insights from different viewpoints.

4. Adequate Preparation: Reviewers must prepare thoroughly by studying the work product before the review meeting. Adequate preparation ensures efficient meetings and identifies issues that can be discussed constructively.

5. Management Support: Organizational commitment and sufficient resources, including time allocation and training, are essential. Management support demonstrates the importance of reviews and enables their proper execution.

6. Documented Results: Recording findings, recommendations, and action items creates accountability and enables tracking of defect resolution. Proper documentation supports process improvement.

7. Follow-Up Actions: Establishing responsibility for correcting identified defects and verifying corrections ensures reviews lead to tangible improvements. Follow-up prevents reviews from becoming mere documentation exercises.

8. Appropriate Review Type: Selecting the correct review format (informal, walkthrough, technical review, or inspection) based on the work product type and objectives maximizes effectiveness.

9. Professional Environment: Maintaining a collaborative, non-judgmental atmosphere encourages honest feedback and active participation. A positive culture promotes quality improvements without defensive reactions.

10. Training and Experience: Adequately trained reviewers with relevant expertise perform more effective reviews. Continuous improvement through experience sharing enhances review effectiveness over time.

These factors collectively ensure reviews serve as effective static testing techniques for quality assurance.