# Trace requirements to observed acceptance evidence

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: An accepted brief has requirements R1,R2 and R 3. Check C1 supplies evidence for R1 and C2 also for R1; C3 supplies R2. All three checks pass, but none addresses R3.

## Decision

Two of three requirements have mapped acceptance evidence. Three passing checks do not establish coverage of the unreviewed R3 obligation.

## Owned work

- Confirm accepted requirement identities
  - Owner role: Scope owner
  - Acceptance evidence: R1,R2 and R 3 remain distinct required outcomes.
- Trace each check to its actual claim
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: Two checks map to R1, one to R2 and none to R3.
- Plan the missing acceptance evidence
  - Owner role: Delivery owner
  - Acceptance evidence: An owned R3 check is supplied before declaring all required outcomes reviewed.

## Workflow

1. Confirm accepted requirement identities. Check: R1,R2 and R 3 remain distinct required outcomes.
2. Trace each check to its actual claim. Check: Two checks map to R1, one to R2 and none to R3.
3. Plan the missing acceptance evidence. Check: An owned R3 check is supplied before declaring all required outcomes reviewed.

## Judgment

The mapping can be wrong or incomplete. A linked passing check does not prove the requirement unless its evidence actually addresses it.


## Filled manual planning note

Two of three requirements have mapped acceptance evidence. Three passing checks do not establish coverage of the unreviewed R3 obligation. Unique covered requirements are {R1,R2}, so coverage is 2/3 under this mapping. The three passed checks are not three distinct requirement outcomes. The mapping can be wrong or incomplete. A linked passing check does not prove the requirement unless its evidence actually addresses it.


## Working artifact

- R1 accepted evidence / C1 and C2 address R1 / Review relevance before accepting
- R2 accepted evidence / C3 addresses R2 / Retain the observed result
- R3 accepted evidence / No mapped check / Hold full acceptance and add the missing owned check


## Workflow questions

### Can several checks support one requirement?

Yes. That may deepen evidence, but it does not automatically cover another requirement.

### Is 2/3 a product-quality score?

No. It is this explicit mapping count; requirement importance and evidence quality are separate.

## Product connection

Use the owned checks and downloaded brief to discuss this planning decision alongside your TeamBoostAI tasks. Confirm available fields, roles and account features separately. The example is manual; it does not calculate live analytics, create work or run an experiment in the product.

Confirm account availability before adopting this manual outline.

## Original worked case

Synthetic records, manual planning only. No account import or live analytics.

### Inspect the invented case records

Check | Mapped requirement | Observed toy result
--- | --- | ---
C1 | R1 | Pass
C2 | R1 | Pass
C3 | R2 | Pass
No mapped check | R3 | Uncovered

### Reasoning

Unique covered requirements are {R1,R2}, so coverage is 2/3 under this mapping. The three passed checks are not three distinct requirement outcomes.

### Bounded result

Two of three requirements have mapped acceptance evidence. Three passing checks do not establish coverage of the unreviewed R3 obligation.

### Distinct decision

The artifact evaluates requirement-to-evidence coverage rather than counting passed checks.

### Limits

The mapping can be wrong or incomplete. A linked passing check does not prove the requirement unless its evidence actually addresses it.

### Definitions and method context

- Original worked-case definitions — Definitions, policy choices, records and calculations are authored for this worksheet. No external standard, statistical validation or live product measurement is claimed.