Pair specification passages with code evidence

Why use this

1. An implementation reviewer may find familiar terminology in code without knowing whether it satisfies the relevant specification clause. A nearby comment, similarly named function or obsolete document version can create an impression of agreement that the actual evidence does not support.

2. An evidence-pair review packet could place bounded specification passages beside the relevant code locations and explain uncertainty. Engineers could inspect the correspondence themselves while keeping retrieval success separate from behavioral correctness or conformance.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Navigate terminology differences and locate candidate implementation evidence without treating a textual match as proof.

Simpler alternative

Use repository search and a manual traceability table for a small, stable requirement set.

Unsuitable when

The task requires certification or a correctness conclusion without engineering review and runtime evidence.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Specification excerpt set

   Owner

   Specification owner

   Minimum scope

   Approved passages with clause IDs and document versions

   Quality check

   Identify normative wording, exceptions and superseded versions.

2. Name

   Code evidence sample

   Owner

   Repository maintainer

   Minimum scope

   Selected symbol definitions, references and revision IDs

   Quality check

   Separate executable logic from comments and generated declarations.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read-only supplied excerpts and a local evidence-pair manifest.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: current runtime, document extraction, parser coverage and retrieval-index behavior.

External actions requiring approval

1. Proprietary-document processing, model downloads, repository changes and sharing evidence outside its approved audience.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Clause-to-symbol candidate pairs with independent citations, scope notes and unresolved behavior questions.

Critical checks

1. Both sides identify exact versions and bounded locations.

2. The explanation does not claim conformance from naming or comments alone.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection was performed for this overlay; use the canonical source-outcome references.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A matching symbol exists but the relevant branch is excluded by configuration.

   Why it matters

   The retrieved code may not describe the intended build.

   Proposed response

   Flag configuration dependence and request evidence for the applicable variant.

2. Signal

   The citation points to an earlier specification revision.

   Why it matters

   The correspondence may answer an obsolete requirement.

   Proposed response

   Keep the pair unresolved until the governing version is confirmed.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define governing versions and citation granularity.

Ongoing review

1. Inspect candidate matches and investigate missing behavioral evidence.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: indexing costs, extraction fidelity and engineer-review effort.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

An invented clause manifest and symbol list include an obsolete requirement and a configuration-gated branch.

Acceptance checks

1. Flag the version and configuration mismatches.

2. Return candidate evidence pairs without declaring a requirement satisfied.

Stop conditions

1. Real proprietary material, indexing, code execution or conformance assessment is needed.

Limits

1. This proposed manifest check evaluates traceability only; it supplies no engineering validation of implementation behavior.