Word / INCOSE PDF
- Opened GtWR summary sheet, last CCB
- PAY-SYS-025 “shall handle errors appropriately”
Topic · INCOSE Guide for Writing Requirements
What is the INCOSE Guide for Writing Requirements, and how do I keep the shalls true in CI?
Gist
The INCOSE Guide for Writing Requirements is the shall-writing rules: one need, active voice, defined terms, no “adequate.” Proof compiles those rules as FRETish. proof validate --preflight accepts the sentence or it does not, then the audit fails the merge when the graph is stale.
proof validate --preflightKeep Jama if you author the programme. Keep the INCOSE PDF if a review still asks for the summary sheet. Proof is not INCOSE membership, and a green compile is not a complete set of needs.
01 · The sentence that compiles
A style guide is not a gate. Last review's Word file is not this push.
GtWR says the shall is singular, active, and verifiable. A person can apply that once. The next commit does not reopen the PDF.
The compiler lives on FRETish. The SRS hierarchy lives on ISO 29148. IEEE 830 stays a FAQ on that URL. This page is the writing rules: the sentence enters the graph only if the templates can parse it.
FRETish is 288 templates of structured English. The pattern is component shall [scope] satisfy response. Undeclared names fail. Vague adjectives have no slot. Escape clauses have no syntax. “And/or” is not an operator; & and | are. That is GtWR-1 through GtWR-9 and GtWR-12, enforced by the grammar, not by a reviewer with a highlighter.
proof validate --preflight
proof audit --fail-level warnThe first command rejects a sentence the templates cannot parse. The second is the standing gate. Pasting last review's “the system shall handle errors appropriately” into YAML is how the guide became wallpaper.
02 · The exhibit
Same need. A highlighter, or a compile.
The Word file still says “adequate.” The graph will not take it. Click the tabs.
This push
The adjective has no slot. The file did not notice.
No compileWord / INCOSE PDF
Still last CCB. Still a highlighter.
Keep the review minutesProof
- Ask does the sentence compile
- Gate validate --preflight, then audit
Same need. A highlighter, or a compile. Click the tabs.
| GtWR rule | What the guide asks | What Proof does |
|---|---|---|
| GtWR-1 | Use “shall” for a requirement | FRETish syntax is component shall … satisfy. Other verbs do not compile. |
| GtWR-2 | Use defined terms | Variable declarations are the vocabulary. An undeclared name fails preflight. |
| GtWR-3 / 4 | No “adequate,” no “if possible” | The grammar has no slot for a vague adjective and no escape-clause syntax. |
| GtWR-5 / 6 / 7 | No “etc.,” no “it,” active voice | Operators are explicit. Names are explicit. The pattern is always active. |
| GtWR-8 / 9 / 12 | Independently verifiable, one need, measurable | Vacuity checking flags a tautology. One scope + condition + response. Numeric comparisons are legal. |
| GtWR-10 | Avoid combinatorial requirements | Partial. The limitations guide recommends decomposition. The compiler will still take a dense boolean. |
| GtWR-11 | Avoid negative requirements where possible | Not supported. Negation compiles. Proof will not refuse “shall not.” |
| Jama Connect | Programme authoring, baselines, the shall as written | They still win at authoring. Proof does not replace Jama. That H1 lives on Proof vs Jama. |
| Word / IEEE 830 template | A section list a student can fill | Different H1. The artefact lives on software requirements specification. IEEE 830 stays on ISO 29148. |
The compile is the scan. Kind2 on the same shalls is a different command:
proof realize specs/system ./... --diagnose
proof audit --fail-level warnUnknown requirement language fails before realizability. A thin graph makes a thin check. Treat the compile as a view of the sentence, not as a second source of completeness. We have not run this against a frozen GtWR corpus, and we have not scored it against Jama or DOORS on the same pack. The loss is named, not scored.
03 · The honest loss
A green Proof audit is not INCOSE membership.
The guide is forty-plus rules. Proof enforces the ones the grammar can see. GtWR-11 is not one of them. Jama still authors.
Proof does not sell the INCOSE PDF, score a requirements working group, or replace a systems-engineering review. Necessary is human judgment. Proof will not sign that the programme wrote the right needs. Combinatorial shalls (GtWR-10) still compile; the limitations guide only recommends a split. Negative shalls (GtWR-11) still compile. Object-code coverage on C still wants the qualified toolchain. That H1 lives on
MC/DC for Go
and on
Proof vs LDRA.
Proof generates inputs. It does not run them. Keep go test.
The language H1 stays on FRETish. The document-type H1 stays on ISO 29148. Jama still authors.
04 · Nearby questions
What people type next.
How do I write machine-checkable requirements for my software? The compiler under these rules. FRETish.
What is ISO 29148? The document hierarchy (BRS, StRS, SyRS, SRS). Different H1. ISO 29148.
What is IEEE 830? The 1998 SRS section list. Superseded. FAQ on ISO 29148, not a twin.
What is a software requirements specification? The artefact the hierarchy names. SRS.
What is a requirements summary? Counts and IDs from the current graph, not the writing rules. requirements summary.
What is writing requirements? Generic how-to SERP. This URL is the INCOSE document. Do not rank the 110 head here.
What is INCOSE? The council. 2400 searches are the org, not this guide. Parked.
How do I measure MC/DC coverage for my Go code? The instrument, not the sentence. MC/DC for Go.