Topic · NPR 7150.2D

What is NPR 7150.2D, and how do I keep the SRS true in CI?

Gist

NPR 7150.2D is NASA's software engineering procedure. The useful artifact is an SRS whose sections still match the graph. Proof prints that document from the current traces with proof doc generate npr7150-srs, then fails the merge when the graph is stale.

proof doc generate npr7150-srs --output docs/srs.html

Keep the handbook. Keep OSMA IV&V if you are a NASA programme. Proof is not that office, and it is not a Class A certificate.

Request demo Last quarter's Word vs this push

01 · The dated Word file

A handbook is not an SRS. An SRS from last quarter is not this push.

NPR 7150.2D §3.2.1 asks you to document software requirements. §7.4 names the sections. A person can fill those once. The next commit does not reopen Word.

The four jobs that are not NASA-specific (checkable shalls, re-derived links, MC/DC, a named reviewer) live on the DO-178C page. ISO 26262 Part 6 and IEC 62304 sit there too. This page is the NASA document: render §7.4 from the graph you already gate.

Proof was built with NPR 7150 as a primary mapping target. §3.2.1 through §3.2.3 (document, evaluate, change) map onto FRETish compilation, realizability, vacuity, git history, and suspect links. §3.6 bidirectional traceability is the same graph the RTM page re-derives. The missing piece on those pages is the artefact a NASA reviewer still opens: the SRS.

proof validate --preflight
proof doc generate npr7150-srs --format html --output docs/srs.html
proof audit --fail-level warn

The first command rejects a sentence the templates cannot parse. The second renders HTML (or Markdown) from loaded project data. PDF is a separate path and currently fails. The third is the standing gate. Generating docs before traces are refreshed is how the Word file got stale in the first place.

02 · The exhibit

Same §7.4 headings. A date, or this graph.

The Word file still has the section titles. The graph moved. Click the tabs.

Word / SWEHB

Opened §7.4 headings from last review
SYS-REQ-116 still in the appendix

Sections present

This push

The shall changed. The Word file did not.

No re-render

Word / SWEHB

Still last quarter. Still a date.

Keep the handbook

Proof

Ask does npr7150-srs still match traces
Gate audit --fail-level warn

Merge blocked if the graph is stale

Same §7.4 headings. A date, or this graph. Click the tabs.

Who	What they notice	What they lose
NASA NPR 7150.2D / SWEHB	The procedure, classes A through E, the SRS content list in §7.4	They write the requirement. Keep them. Proof does not replace the handbook.
Jama / DOORS	A stored shall a person typed	They author the programme. They do not emit NPR §7.4 from the current graph. Keep them.
OSMA IV&V	Independence as the standard means it	A named reviewer on a finding is not that office. Keep IV&V if you are a NASA programme.
Proof	Current traces rendered into `npr7150-srs`, then the same audit on every push	No Software Management Plan document. No coding-standard enforcement. Tests are not executed. Not a Class A certificate.

The generate command loads the project, then one template, then one format:

proof doc list-templates
proof doc generate npr7150-srs --format md --output docs/srs.md
proof doc generate npr7150-srs --format html --output docs/srs.html
proof audit --fail-level warn

Unknown template names fail before render. Unsupported formats fail before render. HTML and Markdown are the supported pair. PDF is classified separately and currently errors. Treat generated output as a view of the graph, not as a second source of shalls. If documentation coverage is low, the SRS is a thin print of a thin graph.

We have not run this template against a frozen NASA IV&V corpus. The loss is named, not scored.

03 · The honest loss

A green Proof audit is not a NASA software class.

Classes A through E still belong to the programme. Proof will not sign Class A. It will not pretend a named reviewer is OSMA independence.

§3.1 wants a Software Management Plan. The proof.yaml manifest is the machine-readable equivalent. A human-written plan is still required for a formal NASA programme. Status there is partial.

§3.3 design and §3.4 implementation are partial: the generated SDD reflects the authored model, and lint finds functions with no requirement reference, but Proof does not prove the architecture is right and does not run go vet for you. §3.5 generates test inputs. It does not execute them. Keep go test.

Jama still authors. The DO-178C four jobs still live on that URL. The matrix H1 still lives on requirements traceability matrix.

Request demo How the install is bought

04 · Nearby questions

What people type next.

I need DO-178C style verification but I'm not in aerospace. What can I use? The four jobs, not the Type Certificate. DO-178C-style.

What is IEC 61508? The parent of ISO 26262. Same four jobs. That cluster stays on the DO-178C URL, not here.

What is a requirements traceability matrix, and how do I keep it true? NPR §3.6 is bidirectional traceability. RTM.

How do I write machine-checkable requirements for my software? FRETish is the compiler under §3.2.2. FRETish.