| 1 |
Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario |
Pass |
Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the failure output; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (the failure is US-001.10). |
| 2 |
Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure |
N-A |
Format is Brief. |
| 3 |
All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows |
N-A |
Format is Brief; actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions and the paragraph are present. |
| 4 |
Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined |
Pass |
Both stated. |
| 5 |
Primary actor is explicitly stated |
Pass |
Software Engineer. |
| 6 |
Stakeholders and their interests are stated |
Pass |
S02 and S05. |
| 7 |
Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps |
N-A |
Format is Brief. |
| 8 |
Alternative/exception flows correctly reference <<include>>/<<extend>> use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 |
N-A |
No alternative flows in a Brief use case. |
| 9 |
Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text |
N-A |
No steps in a Brief use case. |
| 10 |
Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories |
Pass |
Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001. |
| 11 |
Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated |
Pass |
Scope and user-goal level. |
| 12 |
Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail |
Pass |
Goal wording; no tool named. |
