Proof check reference

Review acceptance criteria before relying on them

Acceptance criteria can be present yet too vague to guide a decision. This check asks for an explicit review disposition and flags a common testing slogan that hides the actual outcome.

What the check reads

The spec-stage lint check produces warnings for active requirements with acceptance criteria when their acceptance_review disposition is missing or invalid. Allowed dispositions are reviewed, not_applicable and deferred. It also flags criterion text containing “unit test”. Despite its name, this check does not compare a review timestamp or fingerprint with the current criterion. A valid disposition satisfies the stamp check; it does not establish freshness.

proof audit --check spec_lint_acceptance_review_current

What each disposition actually changes

Record	What this check reports	What remains unresolved
Acceptance criteria with no disposition.	Warning: missing acceptance_review stamp.	The criteria need an explicit review decision.
reviewed, not_applicable or deferred.	No missing/invalid-disposition warning. The “unit test” wording heuristic still runs.	A deferral can satisfy this stamp check while substantive work remains open.
Criterion changed; reviewed stamp left in place.	No fingerprint or timestamp comparison by this check.	The team must revisit the review; this check does not establish freshness.
No acceptance criteria, inactive requirement or explicit rule suppression.	No finding from this rule for that record.	Silence does not establish criterion coverage or requirement approval.

Record the disposition in the requirement, for example:

acceptance_review:
  disposition: deferred

This is a field fragment, not a complete requirement. Keep the outstanding question, responsible reviewer and rationale with the review record. Do not use deferred as a way to imply that acceptance work is complete.

An illustrative case

Illustrative case: “Unit test passes” is attached to an export criterion. It names an activity but leaves the exported records and observable result undefined. Replace it with the agreed output, permissions and relevant boundary conditions. Then record the review outcome. Merely adding reviewed to the existing slogan leaves the separate wording finding unresolved.

Resolve the finding

Read the affected criterion alongside its stakeholder promise. Identify the observable behavior and conditions that a reviewer can accept or reject.
Resolve ambiguous wording with the person or role authorized to define the promise. Use the acceptance review fields to record the disposition and reasoning; a deferral should retain the outstanding work.
Rerun the check, then inspect the acceptance witness and its execution evidence separately. Revisit the review whenever the criterion changes, even if this stamp check remains clear.

What a clear result means

A clear result means the checked criteria have an allowed disposition and did not match the specific wording heuristic. It does not mean a stakeholder approved the requirement, an acceptance test ran or the criterion is complete. Treat the review record as a decision trail and preserve the evidence behind it.

Continue with one real issue

Acceptance criteria · Acceptance witness quality

Bring one finding, its requirement and the current evidence to scope a walkthrough of what your reviewer can establish and what still needs work.