Collaboration with this client turned out to be problematic.
1. At the start of the work, the requirements were not clearly defined: neither the format of code delivery, nor quality criteria, nor conditions for using auxiliary tools.
2. During the project execution, the client did not provide specific technical clarifications, but after completion began to raise claims about things that were not discussed at all.
3. Despite the fact that the code on our side ran without errors, the client refused to accept the work, citing their own technical problems.
4. As a result, we spent a month of work, were left without payment, and also received a negative review that directly affects our reputation.
Conclusion: working with this client is dangerous, as they do not document requirements at the beginning, change their position after the work is done, and shift responsibility onto the contractor.
1. At the start of the work, the requirements were not clearly defined: neither the format of code delivery, nor quality criteria, nor conditions for using auxiliary tools.
2. During the project execution, the client did not provide specific technical clarifications, but after completion began to raise claims about things that were not discussed at all.
3. Despite the fact that the code on our side ran without errors, the client refused to accept the work, citing their own technical problems.
4. As a result, we spent a month of work, were left without payment, and also received a negative review that directly affects our reputation.
Conclusion: working with this client is dangerous, as they do not document requirements at the beginning, change their position after the work is done, and shift responsibility onto the contractor.
