> I can see how brutal this approach is, but this way, the number of bugs is kept to a minimum.
Right, this is the problem I see here. Some people will just drop off entirely in this case, which may or may not be what your project wants. And some people give great reproducible steps, even if they aren't already automated: "Run 'rails new foo', then add this controller <code>, then hit the page and you'll see 1 instead of 2." The system would reject that, even though it has instructions to reproduce.
Bookkeeping software tries to catch all payments and decides which invoice was paid. If the identification misses, they can try to match by other indicators (Name etc.). Some payments slip through the system and a person looks after it.
What i am saying is: Half-automated is better than manual.
Right, this is the problem I see here. Some people will just drop off entirely in this case, which may or may not be what your project wants. And some people give great reproducible steps, even if they aren't already automated: "Run 'rails new foo', then add this controller <code>, then hit the page and you'll see 1 instead of 2." The system would reject that, even though it has instructions to reproduce.