logic-consistency-check

To check requirements for contradictions, you map stated goals, constraints, and acceptance criteria to identify goal-vs-constraint conflicts. This conflict detection process reveals hidden assumption and boundary-condition conflicts, ensuring your spec validation produces an actionable resolution.

Surfacing hidden assumptions and edge cases in product briefs requires inventorying claims and verifying requirement-requirement compatibility. This consistency check exposes equivocation where terms mean different things, preventing drift between your design goals and constraints.

Perform spec validation for goal-constraint drift by mapping stated claims across the entire document to verify compatibility. This detects requirement-vs-requirement contradictions and boundary scenarios where separate design parts fail to align.

Yes, you can apply a consistency check to architecture and product brief validation. It inventories goals, constraints, assumptions, and decisions to verify requirement-requirement compatibility across the whole document, surfacing edge-case failures before commitment.

Requirements review misses equivocation and boundary-condition conflicts when assumptions are not explicitly mapped against goals and constraints. Consistency checking inventories these claims to detect where identical terms carry different meanings across separate design components.

You should not rely solely on automated conflict detection when a spec lacks clearly stated goals, constraints, or acceptance criteria to map. Without explicit claims to inventory, the consistency check cannot effectively surface hidden assumption conflicts or boundary scenarios.