The proof-of-concept is the deliverable

Most automated security testing is a checklist run against known signatures. It will tell you that your software matches a pattern that sometimes indicates a vulnerability, and it will do this with enough confidence that someone has to go and look at each finding by hand. A large share of those findings turn out to be false positives, which is why the reports gather dust.

Dynamic testing works differently. It runs your application the way an attacker would: it maps the surface, tries things, and only reports what it could actually make happen. A vulnerability is not flagged because it resembles one — it is flagged because the agent exploited it and can show you the working proof-of-concept. The report's evidence is the exploit itself.

This changes what a finding means. 'Possible SQL injection in the search endpoint' requires a developer to investigate. 'Here is a request that dumps your user table' is a defect with a repro step, which a developer can fix and a manager can schedule. The cost of a false positive also drops, because a proof-of-concept either works or it does not — there is no middle ground to argue about.

The same discipline applies to fixing. A tool that generated the exploit can suggest the patch, and if it runs in your build pipeline it can block a vulnerable change before it ships rather than discovering it in a monthly scan. Evidence first, then remediation — that ordering is what makes the exercise worth doing at all.