Match the prototype to the uncertainty
A sequence of clickable screens can help examine a task or a label. A small executable sample can explore a calculation, a data transformation, or an interface to another service. These prototypes answer different questions. Building more of the product is not always the best way to learn about the part that remains uncertain.
State what is real and what is represented
A demonstration may use sample data, a simulated response, or a manually controlled result. Those choices can be appropriate when they are explicit. Reviewers should know which actions actually run, which outcomes are represented, and which system connections are absent. A convincing screen is not evidence of a working integration.
Make the review repeatable
The review record can include the prototype version, setup instructions, sample inputs, and the scenarios examined. Describe what a reviewer is being asked to check. A search experiment, for example, might examine how the interface handles an empty result and an ambiguous query rather than attempt to measure an entire search service.
Decide what the next stage needs
The result may support a revision, a different experiment, or a more detailed development scope. It should also identify the missing work: production access controls, real data connections, operational monitoring, or further evaluation. Source delivery, rights of use, and any implementation commitment belong in the project agreement. This note describes research considerations rather than an existing APURVA product.