Topic · obligation completeness

Obligation completeness

Gist

Obligation completeness is the STK to SYS gate: every class on the stakeholder checklist needs a covering system requirement. Proof runs proof audit --check obligation_completeness. A green STK is not a covered checklist. Jama still authors.

proof audit --check obligation_completeness

Keep the suite if it already fails a broken fixture. Keep Jama if it already holds the shalls. Neither one names the class that never got a SYS-REQ.

Request demo Last green STK vs this stamp

01 · The checklist that stopped at one child

A realizable STK is not a covered family.

You can keep STK-REQ-001 and still have never written the SYS-REQ for boundary or malformed_input.

The check walks stakeholder requirements that declare an obligation_checklist. Each listed class needs a satisfying system requirement that carries the same class. It is a structural hop. It does not judge whether those SYS-REQs are good. It asks whether the slot exists.

An empty checklist is a silent pass on this hop. That is a sibling: spec_lint_obligation_checklist_empty. A declared class with no covering SYS-REQ is an error unless you park it with --defer-obligation. A deferral is a counted warning. It is never promoted to an error, and it is never dropped. Suppression is the other primitive: only for a class that does not apply.

The id list lives on requirements completeness. Class-name drift across yaml, catalog, rules, and checklists lives on catalog completeness. Compiling a shall into an obligation lives on spec to obligations. This hop is the missing child class, not those three.

proof audit --check obligation_completeness --verbose
proof workflow check --stage spec --verbose
proof req show STK-REQ-001 --with lineage,traces

Inspect the named family before you edit. Add a SYS-REQ and link it with satisfies, or narrow the checklist to the classes that already exist, or defer the rest with a reason. Do not stamp one SYS-REQ with every class to clear the finding.

02 · The exhibit

Same STK. A green checklist, or this stamp.

STK-REQ-001 still exists. Click the tabs.

The stakeholder

Ask did STK-REQ-001 keep a checklist
Count nominal, boundary, malformed_input. One SYS-REQ.
Why the suite never walked the classes

Stamp green

This hop

No obligation_completeness JSON. The missing classes never ran.

No stamp

The stakeholder

Keep the STK. It still owns that shall. That is not this hop.

Keep the STK

Proof

Ask did every listed class get a SYS-REQ
Out boundary and malformed_input have no satisfier

Incomplete checklist is named

Same STK. A green checklist, or this stamp. Click the tabs.

Surface	What they do	What Proof does	What we lose
Green suite / CI	The tests you selected passed.	Fail when a listed class has no covering SYS-REQ.	We do not write the SYS-REQ for you. A green stamp is not a proof of the Go.
Requirements completeness	Whether L0 / L1 / L2 ids exist.	Whether each declared class has a child.	Not that hop. See requirements completeness.
Catalog completeness	Whether yaml, catalog, rules, and checklists name the same classes.	Whether a covering SYS-REQ exists for each class on this STK.	Not that hop. See catalog completeness.
Jama	The authoring programme. Reviews if you put them there.	Fail the merge when the checklist stops halfway.	Not Jama's V&V. Jama still authors. We have not run a frozen Jama pack.

The teaching graph is still one STK next to its classes. Run the check. Read the family. Write the missing SYS-REQ, or narrow the checklist, or defer with a reason. Do not copy every class onto one child to clear the stamp.

proof req new specs/system --component parser --obligation-class boundary
proof req link add SYS-REQ-011 satisfies STK-REQ-001
proof audit --check obligation_completeness --verbose

Typed evidence on the child is a later hop: obligation_evidence_complete. SYS to SW flow is obligation_decomposition_complete. Jama still authors. Proof vs Jama.

03 · The honest loss

Proof names the missing class. It does not write the SYS-REQ.

A green obligation_completeness is STK-to-SYS agreement. It is not a proof of the Go. Jama still authors.

The check does not judge the formula. A covering SYS-REQ that is vacuous still counts here. An empty checklist is not a finding on this hop. A deferred class stays a warning, including under audit.evidence_strict. We have not scored this graph against a frozen Jama pack or a second human's V&V judgment. The loss is named, not scored.

The compile hop stays on spec to obligations. The engagement stays on software correctness audit. Jama still authors.

Request demo How the install is bought

04 · Nearby questions

What people type next.

What is obligation completeness? Same question. Same URL.

Is this requirements completeness? No. That hop is whether L0 / L1 / L2 ids exist. See requirements completeness.

Is this catalog completeness? No. That hop is class-name drift. See catalog completeness.

Is this spec to obligations? No. That hop compiles a shall. This hop asks whether each listed class has a SYS-REQ. See spec to obligations.

Is this vacuous requirements? No. A covering SYS-REQ that is vacuous still counts here. That hop is vacuous requirements.

Is Proof a Jama alternative for the checklist? No. Jama still authors. Proof vs Jama.