---
description: 'Cite-only reference naming the nine ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 individual-requirement characteristic names with original Microsoft review criteria - Brought to you by microsoft/hve-core'
---

# ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 Individual-Requirement Quality Characteristics

This cite-only reference names the nine ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 section 5.2.5 individual-requirement characteristics and pairs each name with an original Microsoft review criterion. It does not reproduce, paraphrase, or otherwise redistribute the standard's definitions or other text, and it does not include BRD or PRD scoring anchors, gates, thresholds, reviewer payloads, or workflow decisions.

The criteria below are Microsoft's own independent review bars, authored for this skill. They are not reproductions of the standard's definitions. The authoritative definitions of each characteristic live in ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018; consult the standard at the upstream source for the definitive text.

Consumers that need scoring rules layer their own overlays on top of these neutral characteristics.

## Characteristics

Each heading is an ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 section 5.2.5 characteristic name, used here as a factual label. The statement under each name is Microsoft's original review criterion for when this skill treats a requirement as meeting that bar.

### 1. Necessary

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when it addresses a real stakeholder need, product outcome, system obligation, or organizational objective and would leave a meaningful gap if removed.

### 2. Appropriate

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when it sits at the right level of abstraction for the artifact and aligns with the strategy, scope, and architecture context the artifact owns.

### 3. Unambiguous

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when intended readers reach the same interpretation without relying on private context or conflicting assumptions.

### 4. Complete

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when it includes the information needed to understand the obligation, its condition or scope, and the evidence needed to evaluate it.

### 5. Singular

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when it states one requirement with one primary subject, one behavior or property, and one condition or scope boundary.

### 6. Feasible

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when it can be satisfied within known technical, operational, schedule, cost, legal, and resource constraints.

### 7. Verifiable

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when an objective method such as inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test can determine whether the requirement is satisfied.

### 8. Correct

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when it accurately reflects the underlying stakeholder intent, product need, system obligation, and known facts.

### 9. Conforming

Microsoft criterion: a requirement meets this bar when it follows the format, structure, terminology, and language conventions established for its requirement set.

## Usage

Use these characteristics as the neutral vocabulary for individual-requirement quality reviews. Apply scoring, thresholds, blockers, or waiver rules only from a consumer-specific overlay.

BRD scoring and gate anchors live in [../brd/iso-29148-quality-gate.md](../brd/iso-29148-quality-gate.md).

## Sources

* ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018, *Systems and software engineering - Life cycle processes - Requirements engineering*. Authoritative source for the nine section 5.2.5 individual-requirement characteristics. ISO catalog: [https://www.iso.org/standard/72089.html](https://www.iso.org/standard/72089.html). IEEE Xplore: [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8559686](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8559686).
* Sahu, A. et al. (2024). Survey-based commentary on the section 5.2.5 characteristics, in *Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering*, ASME. [https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/computingengineering/article/24/9/091003/1198902](https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/computingengineering/article/24/9/091003/1198902).
* Gramajo, M. G., Ballejos, L., and Ale, M. (2021). *Seizing Requirements Engineering Issues through Supervised Learning Techniques*. arXiv:2105.04757. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.04757](https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.04757).

Citation policy: this file references ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 by name, designator, and clause only. The standard's prose is not redistributed.

## License

This pointer file is original Microsoft content licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 is the property of ISO, IEC, and IEEE and is subject to the publisher's terms at the upstream sources listed above.

> Brought to you by microsoft/hve-core
