AI-generated code: Software engineer report
Expanded web report · Related PDF snapshot: 22 October 2026 · PDF page 11
Research reviewed 22 October 2026 · Evidence and editorial planning guidance are distinguished below.
Produce evidence that the control works
Start from an explicit authorisation matrix and test requests independently of the interface. Use separate users, tenants and roles, including revoked access and stale sessions. Review AI-generated changes as proposed code whose behavior you must understand.
Your immediate priorities
- Test cross-tenant reads, writes, exports and asynchronous jobs using synthetic accounts.
- Check that authorisation is enforced on the server and cannot be bypassed through alternate routes.
How to work through the decision
Work in the approved environment and keep secrets out of tickets, logs and chat. Record the artifact or configuration being tested, the expected behavior and the observed result. Test rejection of unauthorized access alongside successful business behavior. Preserve enough evidence for another person to review the conclusion, while minimizing sensitive data. A passing smoke test is one observation, not proof that every exposure path has been eliminated.
Evidence to ask for
A reviewed access matrix and repeatable negative tests tied to the shipped release.
What changes when I make the request directly instead of following the intended UI?
Work with the next person
Return a reproducible verification record to the technical manager, including untested paths and assumptions. Identify the operational owner of any follow-up test that cannot run during the immediate change window.
Continue with the technical manager report for this topic.
A scenario to rehearse
Illustrative exercise, not an observed customer incident: An invoice feature displays only the signed-in customer’s invoices, but its download endpoint accepts another customer’s identifier. The exercise verifies server-side ownership rather than relying on the filtered user interface.
What a useful outcome looks like
A reviewed access matrix and repeatable negative tests tied to the shipped release. Keep the decision dated and return to it if new evidence changes the scope.