Quality scoring

A requirement is only as good as it is clear and verifiable. TraceUnified analyzes requirement quality as you write, flagging weaknesses early — while they’re cheap to fix — rather than at review or audit.

Writing-quality checks

The quality analyzer inspects the wording of a requirement against well-established practice and surfaces issues such as:

• Pattern conformance — whether the requirement follows a recognized structured form (an EARS-style pattern), and warns when a statement packs in too many conditions to be clear
• Atomicity — flagging multiple “shall” statements in one requirement, which should usually be split so each requirement is singular and independently verifiable
• Measurability — flagging requirements with no measurable or testable criteria, since an untestable requirement can’t be verified
• Sufficient detail — flagging descriptions too short to be meaningful
• Implementation leakage — flagging implementation-specific terms, since a requirement should state what is needed, not how to build it

Each finding is categorized by severity, so you can tell a hard problem from a gentle suggestion and prioritize accordingly.

ALCOA+ data integrity

Alongside wording, quality is judged against ALCOA+, the data-integrity principles regulators expect of records: Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original, and Accurate, plus Complete, Consistent, Enduring, and Available. Because TraceUnified records carry identity, history, signatures, and an audit trail by design, these principles are supported structurally — and the quality view makes that posture visible on the record.

Working with the results

Quality findings appear on the requirement as you work, with issues grouped by category and a clear indication of what’s clean and what needs attention. They’re guidance, not a gate — but resolving them before review means cleaner requirements, smoother approvals, and stronger evidence. Coverage and the quality of the links around a requirement are assessed separately, in Traceability.