Adam Kennedy wrote: > Part of the problem comes in defining "bogus".
This is a red herring. Consider the original proposal: If a tester sends in a 'updated' report (matching all the appropriate criteria), then the update should overwrite/mask the original. There is no need to define the criteria whereby a report is overwritten/masked: Just leave it up to the tester's discretion to decide if and when to send in a updated report. A tester isn't going to bother with an update unless he finds his testing system is corrupted or buggy, or unless prompted by a developer. Even then, the tester won't send in an updated report unless he concurs that the original report was 'problematic' in a way that invalidated it.
