Topic · requirements validation

Requirements validation

Gist

Requirements validation is whether every .req.yaml still parses as a requirement. Proof fails proof validate when an unquoted colon drops the file. A workshop that the customer still wants this is not that. Jama still authors.

proof validate

Keep Jama if you author shalls. Keep SEBoK if you teach Boehm. Proof will not treat a silent drop as a clean corpus.

Request demo Last silent drop vs this parse

01 · The silent drop

The file is on disk. The id is gone.

An unquoted colon in the rationale. The loader returns zero. Every later check is green on a corpus that no longer contains the shall.

GeeksforGeeks and SEBoK will tell you validation is “are we building the right thing.” Jama will run verification versus validation as a programme. That is not this URL. Proof's proof validate is the structural gate on the files you already have: YAML that still loads, required fields that still parse, variable files that still match the model, stakeholder criterion ids that still resolve.

The motivating miss is mechanical. SYS-REQ-321 has a rationale that says Declaring it as `req_type: assumption` is wrong here. YAML treats the inner colon as a mapping. repo.LoadAllSpecsFromDirs drops the spec and returns a zero record. proof req show SYS-REQ-321 says not found. Lint skips it. The audit reports a clean pass on a corpus with the id gone.

validate_passes is the only gate that reports the parse loudly: file, line, field, fix hint. The headline counts are requirements only, so they reconcile with proof status. Variable files are tallied on a second line. The exit code matches the error state.

proof validate
proof workflow check --stage spec --verbose

The first command names the file. The second fails the spec stage when the parse is still broken. A green suite next to a dropped id is how the guessed shall shipped.

02 · The exhibit

Same YAML. A silent drop, or this parse.

The file exists. The id does not. Click the tabs.

The file

On disk SYS-REQ-321.req.yaml
Rationale unquoted colon, parsed as a mapping
Loader zero record, id gone

Suite green

This hop

req show says not found. Lint skips the file. The audit is clean because the shall is not in the corpus.

No record

The file

Keep the path. Keep the id you meant. They are not the validation hop.

Keep the file

Proof

Ask does this YAML still load as a requirement
Out mapping values not allowed, line 4

A silent drop is not valid

Same YAML. A silent drop, or this parse. Click the tabs.

Surface	What they do	What Proof does	What we lose
Jama	Verification versus validation as a programme. Does the product match the user.	Fail the parse on the files. File, line, field.	Not Jama's V&V. Jama still authors.
SEBoK / GeeksforGeeks	Boehm: are we building the right thing.	Whether the YAML still loads. Different question.	Not a workshop. Not a customer interview.
Requirements quality	Whether rationale, description, and FRETish are present. requirements quality.	Whether the file parses at all. Empty FRETish is later.	Not `quality_clean`.
Requirements completeness	Whether catalog ids, classes, signal rules, and checklists still agree. requirements completeness.	Parse of one file, not agreement of four ids.	Not `catalog_completeness`.
INCOSE Guide	Writing rules for the shalls. Preflight on the sentence. INCOSE.	Default validate is structure. `--preflight` is the variable model.	Not the Guide. Keep the course they already run.

The teaching graph is still an unquoted colon next to a file that looks present. Quote the rationale, or the loader will keep dropping it. Three traps ship through hand-edits that did not run validate: the inner colon, a backslash-quote in a plain scalar, and triple-single-quote bleed on description.

id: SYS-REQ-321
rationale: Declaring it as `req_type: assumption` is wrong here.

proof validate
proof audit --check validate_passes
proof workflow check --stage spec --verbose
proof help validate_passes

Quote the whole value. Then rerun validate before proof req, lint, or the spec-stage workflow. --strict fails advisory warnings too. --preflight specs/system compiler is the variable model for one component, not this H1. See stakeholder requirements if the failure is an empty L0 folder, not a parse.

03 · The honest loss

Proof names the parse. It does not ask the customer.

1401/1401 valid is not a proof of the Go. Jama still authors.

Proof does not implement Boehm's validation, Jama's V&V programme, or a stakeholder workshop. It does not infer that the shall is the right thing. A file that parses is not proof the Go matches the shall. We have not scored this against a frozen Jama validation pack. The loss is named, not scored.

validate_passes stays on this URL as the CI floor, not a twin. Quality of the fields stays on requirements quality. Completeness of the catalog stays on requirements completeness. The writing rules stay on INCOSE. Jama still authors.

Request demo How the install is bought

04 · Nearby questions

What people type next.

What is requirements validation? Same question. Same URL.

What is verification vs validation? Jama and SEBoK mean building the right thing versus building it right. Different cluster. Not this URL.

How do I validate requirements? Same cluster. The workshop is the customer. This URL is the parse on the files.

What is requirements quality? Whether rationale and FRETish are present, after the file already parses. requirements quality.

What is requirements completeness? Whether four ids still agree, not whether YAML loads. requirements completeness.

What is the INCOSE Guide for Writing Requirements? The writing rules. Preflight on the sentence. INCOSE.

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