Loading workspace…
signed outSign in
Every requirement in bioskepsis-insights-user-requirements-v1.1.md, with the verdict the document’s own rules force. No requirement now carries the verdict BLOCKED. Each row carries both halves of its account, what is buildable and what is still held, and names the decisions that released it. A requirement answered the other way is DROPPED, and that is the one verdict nobody can go and change.
Showing the requirements whose account names OQ-31. Of the 2 shown, its answer released 2.
| ID | Verdict | Basis | What that means |
|---|---|---|---|
FR-PLAN-01 | BUILD | research | All of it, and it lists no open question at all. A user can create, name, save, edit and delete a target-expert list with a stated purpose, and add or remove experts; the three purpose examples in the requirement text (advisory board, speaker programme, trial-site search) are enumerated by the... Still held. Nothing. Three cautions that are constraints rather than gates: 0.5 - no maximum list size, member cap or seat limit may be invented (OQ-31 covers the seat model); the cross-customer isolation rule is ACC-01, which is basis inference plus OQ-04, so scope every list to one customer_id and do not... |
ACC-01 | BUILD | inference | All of it, confirmed by OQ-04, which also settles the shape. An external Medical Affairs agency holds one account containing a separate workspace per drug-company client, and inside that account a workspace shows its lists, notes, weights and exports only to the agency staff assigned to it. A Medical Affairs team inside a drug company holds its own account for that company. The seat model is a yearly fee per named user with add-on modules charged separately, so an account holds named users with a licence record each, and module entitlements sit at account level (OQ-31). Still held. Nothing. The isolation is per workspace as well as per account, which is stricter than the requirement's own wording and is what an agency's clients will ask about. |