A municipal client asks that the wireless assessment report include remediation alongside offensive proofs. What balanced reporting practice should the consultant follow?

When a municipal client asks that the wireless assessment report include remediation alongside offensive proofs, the consultant should include impact discussion and fix guidance with the proofs—professional wireless reports are not trophy lists alone. Shipping only cracked PSKs and omitting fixes so attackers elsewhere cannot learn defenses misunderstands authorized client deliverables. Replacing all technical detail with marketing slogans about cyber resilience fails engineers who must remediate. Publishing raw credential dumps to social media for transparency is a confidentiality breach. Exam caveat: balance is the point—enough technical proof to be credible, enough remediation to be useful, without dumping secrets publicly. Operational check: structure civic reports with executive impact, technical evidence, and prioritized fixes mapped to WPS, PSK, Enterprise, or rogue findings as applicable. For municipal and campus engagements, keep the finding language tied to authorized scope, name the building or SSID class affected, and state the residual risk to residents or staff if the rejected option had been chosen. Re-validate after the next change window that the selected control still matches inventory, monitoring, and RoE abort criteria used by the city wireless program.