This paper reports findings from Australian research into student, academic and administrative staff understandings of the role and efficacy of periodic progress reports designed to monitor the progress of higher-degree-by-research candidates. Major findings are that confusion of the purpose and ultimate audience of these reports is linked to less than effective reporting by all parties; countersigning and report dependency requirements inhibit the frank reporting of progress and "social learning" impacts on the way candidates and sometimes supervisors approach reporting obligations, running counter to institutional imperatives. We conclude that no ready or transparent nexus between the progress report and progress may be assumed. Fundamentally, this calls into question the usefulness of this process as currently implemented. Arising from this is the recommendation that progress reporting be linked to substantive reviews of progress and embedded in the pedagogy and curriculum of higher-degree-by-research programmes.