[Your Feature Name] Requirements Inspection Checklist		status: draft security: YES safety: ASIL_B
tags: template, feature_name realizes: wp__requirements_inspect

doc__feature_name_req_inspection		Generic Document

Attention

The above directive must be updated according to your Feature.

Modify Your Feature Name to be your Feature Name
Modify id to be your Feature Name in lower snake case preceded by doc__ and followed by _req_inspection
Adjust status to be valid
Adjust safety, security and tags according to your needs

Requirement Inspection Checklist#

Purpose

The purpose of this requirement inspection checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during requirements inspection.

Conduct

As described in the concept Work product Inspections Co... (doc_concept__wp_inspections) the following “inspection roles” are expected to be filled:

author: these are the persons who did the last commits on the requirements in scope (can be derived from version mgt tool)

reviewer: these are all persons committing into this inspection document or giving a pull request verdict on it (can be derived from version mgt tool)

moderator: only needed for conflict resolution between author and reviewers, is the safety manager, security manager or quality manager called in as a reviewer (can be derived from version mgt tool)

test expert: <one of the reviewers explicitly named here, to cover REQ_08_01 as described>

Checklist

Table 62 Feature Requirement Inspection Checklist#

Review ID

Acceptance Criteria

Guidance

Passed

Remarks

Issue link

REQ_01_01

Is the requirement formulation template used?

see Requirement Formulation Tem... (gd_temp__req_formulation), this includes the use of “shall”.

REQ_02_01

Is the requirement description comprehensible ?

If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.

REQ_02_02

Is the requirement description unambiguous ?

Especially search for “weak words” like “about”, “etc.”, “relevant” and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling.

REQ_02_03

Is the requirement description atomic ?

A good way to think about this is to consider if the requirement may be tested by one (positive) test case or needs more of these. The requirement formulation template should also avoid being non-atomic already. Note that there are cases where also non-atomic requirements are the better ones, for example if those are better understandable.

REQ_02_04

Is the requirement description feasible ?

If at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also Requirement attribute: link... (gd_req__req_attr_impl) shows this. In case the requirement has no implementation at the time of inspection (i.e. not implemented at least as “proof-of-concept”), a development expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.

REQ_02_05

Is the requirement description independent from implementation ?

This checkpoint should improve requirements definition in the sense that the “what” is described and not the “how” - the latter should be described in architecture/design derived from the requirement. But there can also be a good reason for this, for example we would require using a file format like JSON and even specify the formatting standard already on stakeholder requirement level because we want to be compatible. A finding in this checkpoint does not mean there is a safety problem in the requirement.

REQ_03_01

For stakeholder requirements: Is the rationale correct?

Rationales explain why the top level requirements were created. Do those cover the requirement?

REQ_03_02

Is the linkage to the parent requirement correct?

Linkage to correct levels and ASIL attributes is checked automatically, but it needs checking if the child requirement implements (at least) a part of the parent requirement.

REQ_04_01

Is the requirement internally and externally consistent?

Does the requirement contradict other requirements within the same or higher levels? One may restrict the search to the feature for component requirements, for features to other features using same components.

REQ_05_01

Do the software requirements consider timing constraints?

This checkpoint encourages to think about timing constraints even if those are not explicitly mentioned in the parent requirement. If the reviewer of a requirement already knows or suspects that the code execution will be consuming a lot of time, one should think of the expectation of a “user”.

REQ_06_01

Does the requirement consider external interfaces?

The SW platform’s external interfaces (to the user) are defined in the Feature Architecture, so the Feature and Component Requirements should determine the input data use and setting of output data for these interfaces. Are all output values defined?

REQ_07_01

Is the safety attribute set correctly?

Derived requirements are checked automatically, see Requirements linkage safety (gd_req__req_linkage_safety). But for the top level requirements (and also all AoU) this needs to be checked manually for correctness.

REQ_07_02

Is the attribute security set correctly?

For feature requirements this checklist item is supported by automated check: “Every requirement which satisfies a stakeholder requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this”. But the feature requirements/architecture may additionally also be subject to a Software Security Analysis.

REQ_08_01

Is the requirement verifiable?

If at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also Requirement attribute: test... (gd_req__req_attr_test_covered) shows this. In case the requirement is not sufficiently traced to test cases already, a test expert is invited to the inspection to give his opinion whether the requirement is formulated in a way that supports test development and the available test infrastructure is sufficient to perform the test.

REQ_09_01

For stakeholder requirements: Do those cover assumed safety mechanisms needed by the hardware and system?

Note that stakeholder requirements covering safety mechanisms come from rationales, whereas feature requirements are covering safety mechanisms coming from Safety Analysis Checklist T... (gd_chklst__safety_analysis)

REQ_09_02

Do the feature requirements defining a safety mechanism contain the error reaction leading to a safe state?

Alternatively to the safe state there could also be “repair” mechanisms. Also do not forget to consider REQ_05_01 for these.

Attention

The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component requirements in scope.

Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your requirement, then state “”n/a” in status and comment accordingly in remarks. For example “no stakeholder requirement (no rationale needed)”

The following requirements in “valid” state and with “inspected” tag set are in the scope of this inspection:

No needs passed the filters

And also the following AoUs in “valid” state and with “inspected” tag set (for these please answer the questions above as if the AoUs are requirements, except questions REQ_03_01 and REQ_03_02):

No needs passed the filters

Attention

The above tables filtering must be updated according to your Feature.

Modify feature_name to be your Feature Name in lower snake case

Review ID	Acceptance Criteria	Guidance
REQ_01_01	Is the requirement formulation template used?	see Requirement Formulation Tem... (gd_temp__req_formulation), this includes the use of “shall”.
REQ_02_01	Is the requirement description comprehensible ?	If you think the requirement is hard to understand, comment here.
REQ_02_02	Is the requirement description unambiguous ?	Especially search for “weak words” like “about”, “etc.”, “relevant” and others (see the internet documentation on this). This check shall be supported by tooling.
REQ_02_03	Is the requirement description atomic ?	A good way to think about this is to consider if the requirement may be tested by one (positive) test case or needs more of these. The requirement formulation template should also avoid being non-atomic already. Note that there are cases where also non-atomic requirements are the better ones, for example if those are better understandable.
REQ_02_04	Is the requirement description feasible ?	If at the time of the inspection the requirement has already some implementation, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also Requirement attribute: link... (gd_req__req_attr_impl) shows this. In case the requirement has no implementation at the time of inspection (i.e. not implemented at least as “proof-of-concept”), a development expert should be invited to the Pull-Request review to explicitly check this item.
REQ_02_05	Is the requirement description independent from implementation ?	This checkpoint should improve requirements definition in the sense that the “what” is described and not the “how” - the latter should be described in architecture/design derived from the requirement. But there can also be a good reason for this, for example we would require using a file format like JSON and even specify the formatting standard already on stakeholder requirement level because we want to be compatible. A finding in this checkpoint does not mean there is a safety problem in the requirement.
REQ_03_01	For stakeholder requirements: Is the rationale correct?	Rationales explain why the top level requirements were created. Do those cover the requirement?
REQ_03_02	Is the linkage to the parent requirement correct?	Linkage to correct levels and ASIL attributes is checked automatically, but it needs checking if the child requirement implements (at least) a part of the parent requirement.
REQ_04_01	Is the requirement internally and externally consistent?	Does the requirement contradict other requirements within the same or higher levels? One may restrict the search to the feature for component requirements, for features to other features using same components.
REQ_05_01	Do the software requirements consider timing constraints?	This checkpoint encourages to think about timing constraints even if those are not explicitly mentioned in the parent requirement. If the reviewer of a requirement already knows or suspects that the code execution will be consuming a lot of time, one should think of the expectation of a “user”.
REQ_06_01	Does the requirement consider external interfaces?	The SW platform’s external interfaces (to the user) are defined in the Feature Architecture, so the Feature and Component Requirements should determine the input data use and setting of output data for these interfaces. Are all output values defined?
REQ_07_01	Is the safety attribute set correctly?	Derived requirements are checked automatically, see Requirements linkage safety (gd_req__req_linkage_safety). But for the top level requirements (and also all AoU) this needs to be checked manually for correctness.
REQ_07_02	Is the attribute security set correctly?	For feature requirements this checklist item is supported by automated check: “Every requirement which satisfies a stakeholder requirement with security attribute set to YES inherits this”. But the feature requirements/architecture may additionally also be subject to a Software Security Analysis.
REQ_08_01	Is the requirement verifiable?	If at the time of the inspection already tests are created for the requirement, the answer is yes. This can be checked via traces, but also Requirement attribute: test... (gd_req__req_attr_test_covered) shows this. In case the requirement is not sufficiently traced to test cases already, a test expert is invited to the inspection to give his opinion whether the requirement is formulated in a way that supports test development and the available test infrastructure is sufficient to perform the test.
REQ_09_01	For stakeholder requirements: Do those cover assumed safety mechanisms needed by the hardware and system?	Note that stakeholder requirements covering safety mechanisms come from rationales, whereas feature requirements are covering safety mechanisms coming from Safety Analysis Checklist T... (gd_chklst__safety_analysis)
REQ_09_02	Do the feature requirements defining a safety mechanism contain the error reaction leading to a safe state?	Alternatively to the safe state there could also be “repair” mechanisms. Also do not forget to consider REQ_05_01 for these.

Requirement Inspection Checklist#

This Page