How to audit AI-generated requirements
Start with the notes and the draft side by side. For each statement that changes scope, permissions, business rules or timing, identify its evidence and decision status. Then make a separate pass for important source statements the draft omitted.
The Harborline order-approval project below is a fictional teaching case from Discovery QA, not a customer result or an accuracy benchmark. The review findings are worked examples, not claims about what the browser checker will detect.
CASE 01
A missing exception becomes automatic approval
Meeting notes
“If the customer has any overdue invoice, Finance must review the order regardless of discount.”
T-015; T-016 explicitly includes 0% and exactly 10%.
Draft requirement
“If the discount is 10% or less, the request is automatically approved.”
What changed: A low discount removes the Sales Manager step. It does not remove Finance review. The draft collapses two independent rules into one.
Correction: Restore Finance review for every order with an overdue invoice. When both triggers apply, both approvals are required; their sequence is still an open decision.
Review question / test: An order has a 5% discount and an overdue invoice. Expected: Finance review is required; the order must not be automatically approved.
CASE 02
A question becomes a delivery commitment
Meeting notes
“Eight weeks is a question for estimation, not a commitment or requirement.”
T-059; T-002 also says no delivery date is being approved.
Draft requirement
“Target delivery: 8 weeks.”
What changed: The draft turns an explicitly unapproved idea into a delivery target. The date might later be agreed, but it is not supported as agreed scope now.
Correction: Replace the target with “Delivery date not agreed. Estimate after resolving scope blockers.” Keep any proposed date labelled as a proposal.
Review question / test: Can the reviewer point to an explicit decision approving the delivery target? If not, leave it open.
CASE 03
An access conflict disappears
Meeting notes
Sales wants regional access. Operations reportedly requires assigned-account access. The meeting says: “the draft must show both statements as a conflict—not choose one.”
Paraphrase of T-026–T-029; closing quote from T-030.
Draft requirement
“View every customer in the representative’s region.”
What changed: The draft chooses the broader permission without a decision. Polished wording does not resolve the access boundary.
Correction: Mark visibility as unresolved. Ask Operations and Sales to confirm the account boundary and any temporary delegation rules before implementing it.
Review question / test: An unassigned account is in the same region. Is viewing it allowed? The source does not yet authorize one answer.
The five checks to keep
- Mark each material claim as supported, conditional, contradicted or not established by the supplied source.
- Read the source again for omitted actors, exceptions and boundaries.
- Keep conflicting statements visible until an authorized owner resolves them.
- Turn supported rules into observable acceptance criteria. Do not invent numerical targets.
- Return a small correction patch and an open-decision list. A human approves the changes.
“Unsupported” is not the same as false. Missing evidence is a reason to ask, not permission to invent the answer. A consistent document can still be incomplete.
Try one review, then choose the depth
The free browser checker uses keyword matching to suggest claims for review. The free downloadable workflow runs in your own AI workspace. The $29 kit adds broader passes for omissions, contradictions, permissions, testability and estimation blockers, with templates and worked examples.
Or download the free AI-assisted workflowWritten by Discovery QA · 9 September 2026. We make the paid kit linked above. Examples are fictional; human review is required. How we measure use.