Tests and Requirements, Requirements and Tests: A Möbius Strip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing acceptance tests early is a requirements engineering technique that can save time and money and help businesses better respond to change. We believe that concrete requirements blend with acceptance tests in much the same way as the two sides of a strip of paper become one side in a Mobius strip. In other words, requirements and tests become indistinguishable, so you can specify system behavior by writing tests and then verify that behavior by executing the tests. In this article, we purposely avoided describing the detailed syntax of FIT to demonstrate that knowledge of that syntax isn't required to read and understand the tests as requirements. This could lead you to believe that there is no syntax and that the tests are simply ad hoc conversions of narratives to tables. Requirements written in the FIT style are also tests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".