Find the problems that scripted checks miss
Software can meet its written requirements and still fail its users. I provide senior-level manual testing that examines not only whether a feature works, but whether it works reliably, makes sense, and supports the real user journey.
With more than 20 years of QA experience, I have tested web, mobile, and desktop applications across SaaS, financial services, public transportation, CAD software, e-commerce, and regulated product environments. I can join an established team, take ownership of a defined test phase, or help introduce structure where testing has become reactive or inconsistent.
Contact me to discuss manual testingI investigate the product beyond the expected happy path, combining structured test coverage with the freedom to follow unexpected behavior, inconsistencies, and emerging risks.
I create risk-based regression coverage, verify critical workflows, and provide clear information about release readiness. The objective is not merely to execute a checklist, but to help the team understand what has been tested, what remains uncertain, and where the greatest risk lies.
My experience includes responsive web applications, native and cross-platform mobile apps, complex browser-based administration tools, and specialist desktop software.
I test the behavior between systems as well as the visible interface, using tools such as Postman, browser developer tools, REST APIs, JSON, SQL, and application logs to investigate failures and isolate their causes.
Quality is not limited to technical correctness. I identify confusing terminology, inconsistent workflows, unclear validation, accessibility concerns, and unnecessary friction that can prevent users from completing their goals.
A useful defect report should help the team act. I document concise reproduction steps, evidence, environment details, severity, business impact, and relevant technical observations, while working directly with developers and product owners to resolve ambiguity quickly.
I begin by understanding the product, its users, the business-critical workflows, and the consequences of failure. From there, I establish coverage according to risk rather than treating every screen and requirement as equally important.
My work typically includes:
Manual testing is not the opposite of automation. Automated checks are excellent at confirming known behavior repeatedly; skilled manual testing is better suited to discovery, judgment, usability, and rapidly changing functionality.
I can provide manual testing as a standalone service or combine it with test automation to create balanced coverage.
I am available for freelance projects, release support, targeted test phases, and ongoing QA engagements. I work remotely and can attend on-site sessions in Germany when required.