Maintain a requirements document through project meetings

Why use this

1. A project team may discuss new requirements across several meetings while its main document continues to reflect an older understanding. A transcript can mix decisions, options and casual suggestions, making automatic consolidation risky.

2. This job could prepare a versioned requirements draft with each proposed change linked to the underlying discussion. Preserving unresolved alternatives gives stakeholders a clear way to confirm what was agreed before the draft becomes a delivery commitment.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Distinguish decisions from proposals, reconcile contradictory inputs and map confirmed changes into the document's structure.

Simpler alternative

Update a short requirements document manually when decisions are few and explicit.

Unsuitable when

The workflow would turn ambiguous discussion into contractual scope or overwrite stakeholder-approved requirements without review.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Requirements baseline

   Owner

   Project owner

   Minimum scope

   Approved version and formatting conventions

   Quality check

   Identify protected requirements and stable IDs

2. Name

   Meeting/project inputs

   Owner

   Authorized participants

   Minimum scope

   Relevant transcript excerpts and decision records

   Quality check

   Check speaker attribution, date and approval status

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read copied inputs and draft a separate revision/change log; no shared-document replacement or meeting distribution.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current transcription quality, document formatting, version controls and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Updating authoritative shared documents, assigning commitments or distributing confidential meeting content requires approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Requirements draft with stable IDs, proposed revisions, source pointers and open stakeholder questions.

Critical checks

1. Keep decisions separate from suggestions; preserve conflicting statements; verify scope, acceptance criteria and version lineage.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A brainstormed feature becomes mandatory scope

   Why it matters

   The document invents a commitment

   Proposed response

   Mark the feature proposed and seek stakeholder confirmation.

2. Signal

   A later comment silently removes a requirement

   Why it matters

   Context or authority may be missing

   Proposed response

   Show the conflict and retain the baseline pending review.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define decision evidence and document change conventions.

Ongoing review

1. Stakeholders confirm revisions and resolve open questions.

Unknowns

1. Transcript accuracy, approval clarity, revision effort and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a baseline requirement and two meeting excerpts containing a firm decision, tentative idea and contradictory follow-up; propose a tracked change summary.

Acceptance checks

1. Separate statuses; preserve source attribution; leave conflict unresolved; overwrite nothing.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if decision authority or the approved baseline cannot be established.

Limits

1. A revised draft cannot establish stakeholder agreement, contractual scope or permission to implement new requirements.