Stakeholder requirements

SEBoK, NASA, and the PMI literature treat stakeholder requirements as the needs a person or group places on the system of interest. That is a workshop, a register, a programme. Proof's stakeholder_requirements_exist check is narrower: the project has at least one stakeholder requirement file under specs/stakeholder/requirements. Without that layer, every downstream check that depends on L0 to L1 to L2 (levels_connected, cross_level_complete, obligation_completeness) either silently passes zero-of-zero or quietly skips.

The motivating miss is mechanical. The team starts at system requirements imported from Jira or DOORS. They never write the stakeholder layer. The audit that only looks at SYS-REQ files reports clean. Six months later two SYS-REQs collide. The root cause is two children that resolve different unwritten stakeholder needs.

The command is deterministic. It does not interview operators. It does not invent personas. It refuses a silent pass when the L0 directory is empty.

proof req add specs/stakeholder --interactive
proof audit --check stakeholder_requirements_exist

The first command writes a real STK-REQ. The second asks whether any exist. A green system import after an empty stakeholder folder is how the collision stayed hidden.

The teaching graph is still an empty L0 under a green system import. Add one real STK-REQ with a persona, a story, and a testable acceptance criterion that names the children it expects. Then let l0_stakeholder_complete judge whether those fields are filled. Existence and completeness are two checks. This URL is existence.

id: STK-REQ-001
title: Operators can rate-limit a tenant without restarting the gateway
stakeholder:
  persona: gateway-operator
  story: As an operator, I need to apply a quota policy at runtime
  acceptance_criteria:
    - id: AC-001
      text: Policy applies within 1s of API call
      testable: true
      derived_reqs: [SYS-REQ-001, SYS-REQ-002]

proof req add specs/stakeholder --interactive
proof audit --check stakeholder_requirements_exist
proof audit --check l0_stakeholder_complete
proof help stakeholder_requirements_exist

Default severity is ERROR. There is no waiver. Waiving the check would defeat it. Add at least one stakeholder requirement instead. A placeholder file with no persona is a later finding on l0_stakeholder_complete, not a pass of this one.

Proof does not implement SEBoK, NASA NPR 7123, or a PMI stakeholder analysis. It does not interview operators. It does not certify that the persona in the YAML is a real person. It does not treat one STK-REQ as proof the whole programme is complete. We have not scored this against a frozen SEBoK pack. The loss is named, not scored.

l0_stakeholder_complete stays on this URL as the follow-on check, not a twin. Derived children stay on derived requirements. The compiled shalls stay on software requirements specification. Jama still authors.

What are stakeholder requirements? Same question. Same URL.

What is L0? Same cluster. The stakeholder directory. Same command.

Is this SEBoK stakeholder needs definition? No. Keep SEBoK for the workshop. Proof counts files.

Is this NASA stakeholder expectations? No. NPR 7123 still owns that review. NPR 7150.2D is the software procedure, not this H1.

What are derived requirements? Shalls that were not in the stakeholder set. derived requirements as proof req derive.

What is a software requirements specification? The artefact that lists the shalls. SRS.

What is a requirements traceability matrix? The table of links, re-derived from the graph. RTM.

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