# Scope Alignment Checklist: REV-004 账务处理一期

**Purpose**: Validate whether the REV-004 scope and alignment requirements are complete, clear, consistent, and review-ready.
**Created**: 2026-03-18
**Feature**: [/Volumes/Dpan/github/fujian_water_biz_doc/specs/001-rev004-accounting/spec.md](/Volumes/Dpan/github/fujian_water_biz_doc/specs/001-rev004-accounting/spec.md)

**Note**: This checklist is generated by the `/speckit.checklist` command based on feature context and requirements.

## Source & Scope

- [ ] CHK001 Are the target documents and their distinct responsibilities explicitly defined without overlap or omission? [Completeness, Spec §FR-001]
- [ ] CHK002 Are the governing source-of-truth documents clearly distinguished from reference-only materials such as Archive content? [Consistency, Spec §FR-002]
- [ ] CHK003 Does the spec define REV-004 phase-one scope with a stable inclusion list and an equally explicit exclusion boundary? [Completeness, Spec §FR-003, Spec §FR-005]
- [ ] CHK004 Is the rule "共性能力先统一、场景能力再分批" specified with enough detail to constrain later planning order and not just describe intent? [Clarity, Spec §FR-004]

## Requirement Completeness

- [ ] CHK005 Are traceability requirements defined across detailed design, interface design, and database design for every in-scope accounting scenario? [Completeness, Spec §FR-006]
- [ ] CHK006 Are evidence retention, original-basis recording, and result write-back requirements all specified as mandatory scope elements rather than implied expectations? [Completeness, Spec §FR-007]
- [ ] CHK007 Does the spec define when execution playbook, project progress, and task checklist updates are required and when they are intentionally not required? [Completeness, Spec §FR-008]
- [ ] CHK008 Are the minimum validation actions required before clarify/plan/tasks complete, specific, and tied to concrete review artifacts? [Completeness, Spec §FR-011]

## Requirement Clarity

- [ ] CHK009 Is "一期" bounded by explicit scenario names and exclusion criteria, rather than by broad phrases that could expand during review? [Clarity, Spec §FR-003, Spec §FR-005]
- [ ] CHK010 Is "审批仅保留能力位和边界说明" precise enough to prevent readers from inferring workflow nodes, routing rules, or BPM scope? [Clarity, Spec §FR-010]
- [ ] CHK011 Is the phrase "文档一致性、计划可拆解性和台账可回写性" translated into objective review questions or evidence points? [Measurability, Spec §FR-009, Spec §SC-004]
- [ ] CHK012 Does the spec avoid implementation-oriented acceptance language and keep review criteria at the user/business-document level throughout? [Clarity, Spec §FR-012]

## Requirement Consistency

- [ ] CHK013 Are the in-scope scenarios consistent between the user stories, functional requirements, assumptions, and plan summary? [Consistency, Spec §User Story 1, Spec §FR-003, Plan §Summary]
- [ ] CHK014 Do the acceptance boundaries in the spec align with the plan's statement that this round excludes backend code modification? [Consistency, Spec §FR-009, Plan §Summary]
- [ ] CHK015 Are the named core scenarios consistent across the spec and plan, given that the plan summary includes five scenarios while FR-003 lists four examples? [Conflict, Spec §FR-003, Plan §Summary]
- [ ] CHK016 Are the requirements for traceability, validation, and ledger sync consistent between the spec and the task structure used for later execution? [Consistency, Spec §FR-008, Spec §FR-011, Tasks §Validation]

## Acceptance Criteria Quality

- [ ] CHK017 Can each success criterion be evaluated objectively from document content alone, without relying on reviewer intuition or external tribal knowledge? [Acceptance Criteria, Spec §SC-001, Spec §SC-002, Spec §SC-003, Spec §SC-004]
- [ ] CHK018 Is the "5 分钟内判断范围" criterion supported by explicit requirement structure that makes such a review realistically repeatable? [Measurability, Spec §SC-002]
- [ ] CHK019 Are acceptance scenarios mapped clearly enough to the functional requirements they are intended to validate? [Traceability, Spec §User Story 1, Spec §User Story 2, Spec §User Story 3]

## Scenario Coverage

- [ ] CHK020 Are primary, exclusion, exception, and governance-sync scenarios all covered in requirements, rather than only the happy-path planning narrative? [Coverage, Spec §Edge Cases, Spec §FR-008, Spec §FR-009]
- [ ] CHK021 Are requirements defined for terminology conflicts between detailed/interface/database documents, including how the formal wording is chosen? [Coverage, Spec §Edge Cases, Spec §FR-006]
- [ ] CHK022 Does the spec define what happens when historical materials contain finer-grained accounting scenarios than the current phase-one baseline? [Edge Case, Spec §Edge Cases]

## Dependencies & Assumptions

- [ ] CHK023 Are assumptions about the current main documents already covering the required accounting scenarios explicitly validated or marked for confirmation? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions]
- [ ] CHK024 Are dependencies on the execution playbook, governance ledgers, and constitution documented as requirements constraints rather than hidden context? [Dependency, Spec §FR-002, Plan §Technical Context]

## Ambiguities & Conflicts

- [ ] CHK025 Is there any unresolved ambiguity between "账务处理一期" as a document-governance scope and "后续实施计划" as a scenario-delivery scope? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-004, Spec §FR-009]
- [ ] CHK026 If scope is later narrowed to a single sub-scenario, do the requirements say which parts of the current baseline remain mandatory and which may be deferred? [Gap, Spec §Assumptions]

## Notes

- Check items off as completed: `[x]`
- Add comments or findings inline
- Link to relevant resources or documentation
- Items are numbered sequentially for easy reference