# Specification Quality Checklist: IA Semantics — Scope vs Filter vs Targeting

**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning  
**Created**: 2026-02-20  
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md)

## Content Quality

- [x] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs
- [x] Written for non-technical stakeholders
- [x] All mandatory sections completed

## Requirement Completeness

- [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
- [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
- [x] Success criteria are measurable
- [x] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
- [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined
- [x] Edge cases are identified
- [x] Scope is clearly bounded
- [x] Dependencies and assumptions identified

## Feature Readiness

- [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
- [x] User scenarios cover primary flows
- [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
- [x] No implementation details leak into specification

## Notes

- FR-001 through FR-014 are all testable with clear pass/fail criteria mapped to acceptance scenarios.
- The spec intentionally references codebase-specific method names (e.g. `OperateHubShell::scopeLabel()`, `activeEntitledTenant()`) in the Assumptions section and Implementation Notes to provide implementation context — these are scoped to assumptions, not leaked into functional requirements or success criteria.
- User Story 6 (P3, Optional) is explicitly marked as non-required for DoD. This is intentional and documented.
- No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers — all decisions were resolvable from the detailed user input specification.
