CAPM Practice: Validate requirements through product delivery

Requirement validation confirms that delivered work genuinely satisfies the underlying business need — not just that it was technically delivered. When there is uncertainty about whether requirements have been met, the appropriate step is to conduct a structured validation session with the stakeholders who can speak to acceptance criteria and business value. Accepting based on a preliminary impression without validation (B) skips a critical quality gate. Closing all five as complete when two were not implemented (C) misrepresents delivery status and constitutes a quality failure. Escalating to the project sponsor (D) is premature when the situation can and should be resolved at the team level through standard validation processes.

**Why not B:** Accepting the three requirements without validating them against the actual business need is premature. The product owner explicitly stated she was unsure whether they truly satisfy the underlying need, so marking them as accepted would bypass the essential validation step and risk delivering work that misses the mark.

**Why not C:** Marking all five requirements as complete simply because the increment was delivered on schedule is dishonest and ignores reality. Two requirements were not implemented at all, and the other three have not been validated. Completion should be based on meeting acceptance criteria and business value, not on delivery timing.

**Why not D:** Escalating immediately to the project sponsor is a disproportionate response at this stage. Uncertainty about whether requirements satisfy a business need is a normal part of iterative development, not a crisis. The project manager should first facilitate a validation discussion with the product owner and stakeholders before considering any escalation.