Explain why a requirement was reapproved

What the check reads

The spec-stage check has error severity and examines active, approved requirements with a named reviewer. A reapproval can cite an existing change through chg, an existing DEFECT through defect, or an unchanged rationale with at least 32 trimmed characters. Initial approval does not require motivation, but a supplied block must be valid. Approvals with a valid RFC3339 timestamp before 2026-06-30T17:50:13Z are grandfathered; missing or malformed timestamps do not earn that exemption.

proof audit --check approval_motivation_present

An illustrative case

Illustrative case: a timeout requirement is reapproved after a unit conversion fix. A change reference lets a reviewer recover the affected behavior and supporting evidence. If the requirement itself is unchanged, an unchanged rationale should explain why the reviewed change preserves its meaning. A generic “looks good” does not provide the required rationale length or a useful decision trail.

Resolve the finding

1. Inspect the current requirement, its approval history and the change that prompted review. Decide whether the approval follows a change, a defect or an unchanged requirement.
2. Record the applicable motivation with a resolving change or DEFECT reference, or write a concrete unchanged rationale. Keep the evidence and actual approval decision available to the reviewer.
3. Rerun the check and approvals_current. A structurally valid motivation and a current approval fingerprint address different parts of the approval record.

What a clear result means

The check validates the shape and references of the explanation. It does not prove that the rationale is true, that the implementation satisfies the requirement or that the reviewer had the necessary authority. The project’s approval policy and the underlying evidence still govern those decisions.

Continue with one real issue

Approvals current · Requirement review

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