Use case PROJECT: The requirement that existed four times

A plant engineering firm, a two-year project, six parties involved: the client's requirement specification, the contractor's own functional specification, the specifications of three suppliers, and a safety concept added eighteen months later. Four weeks before acceptance the project lead asked a question that sounded harmless: which version of the emergency-stop response time applies? It appeared in four documents — in three different wordings, and two of them stated different values. Every change had been agreed properly. Just by e-mail, spread over two years, with changing contacts.

The biggest obstacle was not finding the contradictions. It was being able to EVIDENCE them. Everyone on the project remembered what had been agreed, and every recollection was sincere. What was missing was the citation: the document, the section, the sentence. Without it, a technical clarification turns into a question of volume — and at acceptance it is then not the better argument that wins, but the better folder.

Aigis reads documents against each other rather than one after another. Every finding carries its citation; for the response time, the four passages sat side by side, with date, document and wording. Aigis decided nothing — and that is deliberate. Where two requirements collide, the platform lays out the decision space and names what each option entails; the decision is made by the project lead, and it is recorded together with its reason. A tool that decides here shifts responsibility to somewhere nobody can carry it.

What ended up on the table was not a list of suspicions but a list of decisions — each with a citation, each traceable for the acceptance review. The project lead's work did not get smaller. It became evidenced.

The situation described is composed, not that of a specific customer. The mechanism described is the one Aigis actually applies.