{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/replace-quality-adjectives-with-observable-conditions",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0782",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Replace quality adjectives with observable conditions",
  "summary": "An adjective cannot fail a test until the team agrees what it means.",
  "kind": "protocol",
  "body": "Translate the quality word into the observable outcome that matters: timing, error rate, supported scenario, completion rate, accessibility criterion, recovery condition or other measurable evidence. If you cannot define it yet, keep it as a goal and mark the measurement question open.",
  "limits": [
    "Metrics can create false precision. Choose a threshold because it reflects a real need, not because a number looks rigorous."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-requirements-and-acceptance-clarity"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-A059268EF3F10749"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "NASA guidance warns against unverifiable terms such as easy, fast, adequate or user-friendly unless they are translated into criteria that can be tested, demonstrated, inspected or analyzed.",
      "source_id": "RS-A059268EF3F10749",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "Qualitative goals can still be useful during discovery when they are explicitly treated as goals rather than acceptance requirements.",
      "locator": "Verifiability/Testability"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "Acceptance depends on words such as fast, easy, robust, flexible, sufficient or user-friendly."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Metrics can create false precision. Choose a threshold because it reflects a real need, not because a number looks rigorous."
  ],
  "example": "'The report should load quickly' becomes 'For the agreed reference dataset, the report reaches an interactive state within the accepted performance threshold measured in the test environment.'",
  "check": "Two reviewers using the same evidence can reach the same pass/fail judgement.",
  "steps": [
    "Two reviewers using the same evidence can reach the same pass/fail judgement."
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-A059268EF3F10749",
      "title": "Appendix C: How to Write a Good Requirement",
      "url": "https://www.nasa.gov/reference/appendix-c-how-to-write-a-good-requirement/"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0782",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0788",
      "type": "useful_with",
      "url": "/knowledge/choose-the-verification-method-while-the-requirement-is-still-editable"
    }
  ],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-272C54FF0D8FF2BA",
      "title": "Turn ambiguous work into requirements that can be checked",
      "url": "/collections/turn-ambiguous-work-into-requirements-that-can-be-checked"
    }
  ]
}