Why this matters
A bug report is a transfer of evidence. It should reduce uncertainty for developers, analysts and product owners rather than merely state that something is wrong.
The right amount of detail depends on the issue, but clarity, reproducibility, environment and impact are consistently valuable.
How to do it well
Write a specific title
Name the action, condition and outcome instead of using “does not work”.
State environment and version
Include browser, account type, build, feature flag and relevant data context.
Provide minimal steps
Remove unnecessary actions and make setup explicit.
Separate expected and actual
Describe observable behaviour without mixing it with assumptions about the cause.
Explain impact and frequency
State who is affected, whether work is blocked and how often it occurs.
Attach useful evidence
Add screenshots, video, logs, request IDs or data examples while protecting sensitive information.
What to avoid
- Using vague titles such as “error in campaign”.
- Pasting huge logs without highlighting the relevant time and identifier.
- Guessing the technical cause in place of observed facts.
- Omitting account, permissions or data conditions needed for reproduction.
- Assigning severity without explaining user or business impact.
Hypothetical practical example
“Export fails” becomes “CSV export remains in Processing for audiences above 100,000 contacts in build 2026.04.18”. The report includes a job ID, timestamp and expected completion.
A developer can now reproduce the condition or trace the exact request without several rounds of clarification.
Lesson for practice
A good bug report is concise evidence with context. It accelerates repair by making the problem reproducible, impact understandable and investigation traceable.
A good practice does not have to be complicated. It should be intentional, repeatable and explainable: the team should understand why the control exists, what evidence it provides and how feedback will improve the next iteration.
A real case: a message without a clear response
The SEC’s order of 16 October 2013 described Knight Capital’s US incident on 1 August 2012. Before the market opened, 97 emails referenced an error. Related trading-system failures subsequently produced a loss of approximately USD 460 million.
This was not an ordinary issue-tracker ticket, and I would not suggest that wording alone could have prevented the loss. The case does raise a useful communication question: a technical message is not automatically an effective alert with an accountable recipient. In my own proposed process I would examine both the report’s content and its route to somebody who can decide what to do next.
A hypothetical ticket: an empty export is not a diagnosis
Imagine a user exporting a report with one hundred rows and receiving an empty file. The initial report contains a screenshot and the sentence “export does not work.” Possible explanations include filters, permissions, batch limits, background processing or the download itself. I would not call any of these the confirmed cause without evidence. The initial purpose of the report is to preserve the observable difference.
I would add the time and time zone, application version, user role, filter settings and request correlation identifier. The expected result would be an export containing the agreed selection. I would separately check whether the visible table displays one page or the entire population. One hundred visible rows do not necessarily mean one hundred exported records when the specification uses a different scope.
I would repeat one attempt using safe test data. If the failure occurs only for a particular account, the report should identify that condition rather than claim that every export fails. If it cannot be reproduced, I would record successful attempts and their differences too. An intermittent failure is still a real observation, but it requires a different evidence trail from a defect that can always be triggered by the same steps.
How I would assess severity and priority
I would describe severity through consequences: blocking a critical process, producing incorrect information, exposing data unexpectedly or merely making interaction inconvenient. Proposed priority would consider scope, frequency, a workable alternative and the deadline for completing the activity. A visually minor defect in an amount may be more important than a conspicuously broken image. Visibility should not substitute for impact assessment.
For a time-sensitive problem I would not treat the ticket as a replacement for incident communication. The team should know whether the information belongs with on-call support, the service owner or an incident coordinator. The record may be shared, but the communication route and response speed differ. A consequential incident needs acknowledged ownership; automatically sending an email does not establish that someone has accepted the task.
Evidence should help rather than overwhelm
I would attach the smallest useful illustration and reference fuller evidence in an appropriately controlled location. Ten thousand unmarked log lines are often less useful than a short extract with a timestamp, identifier and explanation. I would also avoid editing original evidence in ways that change its meaning. An anonymised working copy should be clearly distinguished from the original record, with access appropriate to the information it contains.
After a correction I would repeat the original case and related variants: no matching rows, a larger batch, another role and a repeated request. Closure would identify the version tested and the checks actually performed. “Fixed” alone does not demonstrate that the user receives the right file or that retrying cannot create inconsistent results. The verification needs to address the user’s original difficulty as well as the changed implementation.
Temporary recovery is different from a fix
I would record any safe workaround and its limitations separately from remediation. Downloading several smaller batches may let a user complete their task, but does not establish that the automatic export now works correctly. Closure should therefore depend on verification of the original failing condition, while support communication explains which temporary alternative is available and when it should stop being used.
Summary and recommendations
I would recommend a short template that another person can follow without filling in missing assumptions: context, expectation, actual result, minimal reproduction, impact and evidence. Acknowledged ownership and verification of remediation matter just as much. A good bug report does not solve the problem for the developer; it gives them a specific, testable starting point and reduces time spent reconstructing basic circumstances.
Sources and links
Foreign cases provide analytical lessons; their legal frameworks and measures are not automatically applicable to Czech banks. Hypothetical examples and proposed methods do not describe inspections I personally conducted.