Bug fixes on the project - stage 3

The collaboration was generally fine: the contractor was in touch, the main functionality was implemented.

At the same time, after the changes were made, some things worked unstably or worse than before. Discrepancies arose on these points - they were considered as separate tasks for payment, although they appeared to be a result of the changes made.

Also, the deadlines were significantly shifted from the initially agreed ones.

I recommend clearly defining the criteria for task completion at the start, the approach to testing (especially without staging), and what is included in corrections after submission.

The project has uneven quality of the codebase, which affects the stability and predictability of changes.

The client pays significant attention to quality and actively tests the product; however, expectations regarding the outcome have not always been clearly defined at the task-setting stage.

The client is focused on minimizing costs, which sometimes leads to discrepancies between expectations and the agreed scope of work.

The technical specifications are formulated quite generally, which can cause different interpretations of requirements and additional iterations after implementation.

I recommend immediately agreeing on the boundaries of responsibility, the format for task acceptance, and the policy regarding further revisions, as there may be expectations for refinements beyond the initial agreements.

The optimal work format is clearly described requirements, documented acceptance conditions, and separately agreed support after the release.