From interviews to a specification that holds.
Guided sessions collect what people actually know. Contradictions surface while they are still cheap to fix. What comes out is a structured specification, not forty documents that disagree.
The problem
Sound familiar?The requirements sit in forty documents, and no two of them agree. An analyst turns conversations into a specification over weeks, and the first version everyone agrees on arrives after the budget conversation is already over.
Then the contradictions show up during the build, where each one costs a change request instead of a question.
How a session runs
- 01
Everything you have goes in
Existing documents, old specifications, tender papers, meeting notes. The system reads them before it asks anything.
- 02
It asks what is missing
Stakeholders answer in an interview or through a link they open themselves. Each person is asked what only they can answer.
- 03
Contradictions surface
Two sources that disagree become one open question, addressed to the person who can settle it, instead of a silent assumption in a document.
- 04
You review, then it composes
Requirements, actors, decisions and exceptions come out as structured records with their sources, and the document is generated from them.
What you get out
A structured requirement set
Records you can filter, sort and trace, each one carrying the document or the person it came from. Not paragraphs in a Word file.
The open questions, named
What is still unknown is written down as a question with an owner, instead of being papered over with an assumption nobody remembers making.
The document itself
Specification, requirement register or offer, generated from the record and footnoted to it, as a PDF or a structured export, in the language the reader needs.
What changes for the team
Discovery in days
The reading and the first draft happen while the interviews are still running, so the first version everyone can argue about arrives before the budget conversation, not after.
Fewer change requests
A contradiction found during discovery is a question. The same contradiction found during the build is a change request with a price on it.
Analysts review instead of write
This does not replace your business analysts. It removes the typing, and leaves them the part that needs judgment.
The next bid starts ahead
Answers, requirements and prior responses stay as records. The next tender does not begin with somebody searching an old folder.
Questions teams ask
Does this replace our analysts?
No. It removes the writing, not the thinking. Every requirement and every contradiction is confirmed by a person before it lands in the specification.
Do our stakeholders need accounts?
No. Each person gets a personal link that expires. They answer only the questions meant for them.
What if the input documents are a mess?
That is the normal case, and it is where the value is. The messier the input, the more contradictions there are to surface.
Whose data is it?
Yours. It lives in your own database, and it is not used to train models.
Bring one set of requirements.
A tender you are answering, or a pile of documents that do not agree. We run it through a session and you see what comes out, on your own material.
Let's meet