| name | faa-req-handbook |
| description | Knowledge base from the FAA Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32). Use for writing requirements for real-time, embedded control systems — the avionics/medical slant — via the Handbook's eleven recommended practices: system overview and boundary (monitored/controlled variables), operational concepts (use cases), environmental assumptions, change-tolerant functional architecture (dependency diagrams), safety-driven architecture revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree), system modes, detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value + tolerance + latency), the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (MON/CON/NAT/REQ, IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B mapping), subsystem allocation, and rationale. Carries the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples. Slanted toward control systems with sensors and actuators; thin on information-system / enterprise / agile requirements, on requirements-management tooling, and on the formal-methods internals of SCR/RSML/SpecTRM (it names them, does not re-teach them). Does not reproduce the IEEE/DO-178B/ARP standards it cites. |
FAA Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32)
Source: DOT/FAA (US Government work, public domain) | Chapters: 8
When to use
Use this skill when you must turn a fuzzy idea of an embedded control system into a complete, testable, change-tolerant requirements specification — and especially when system-level requirements have to hand off cleanly to software requirements. It is the avionics/medical-control complement to general requirements-writing craft: where domain-neutral guidance asks for "complete, consistent, clear" requirements, this Handbook shows the concrete machinery — typed monitored/controlled variables, validity status on every input, explicit latency and tolerance budgets, fail-safe modes, and rationale on every value. Pair it with the requirements-writing pack (sentence-level craft) and the safety packs (faa-system-safety, mil-std-882).
Prerequisites: none — plain Markdown; no MCP server, API key, or licence tier needed at runtime.
How to Use This Skill
- Without arguments — load the core frameworks below: the eleven recommended practices, the monitored/controlled boundary, the functional architecture, the requirement structure (ideal value + tolerance + latency), and the four-variable model.
- With a topic — ask about a practice (e.g. "operational concepts", "environmental assumptions", "subsystem allocation"), a concept (e.g. "latency rationale", "mode confusion", "UNSPECIFIED", "four-variable model"), or one of the worked examples (Isolette, FCS/FGS/Autopilot).
- With a chapter —
ch02 (boundary), ch03 (operational concepts/assumptions), ch04 (architecture), ch05 (modes/detailed requirements), ch06 (software/allocation), ch07 (rationale), ch08 (worked examples).
Supporting files: glossary.md, patterns.md, cheatsheet.md.
One criterion, eleven practices. The Handbook's quality bar is the Parnas criterion — specify everything needed for the correct system and nothing more — which reduces to "say what, not how." The eleven recommended practices are eleven ways to hit that bar for real-time embedded systems. It is a synthesis of prior work (SCR, the four-variable model, CoRE, RSML/RSML-e/SpecTRM, textual use cases), not a brand-new method, and it expects to be tailored.
Core Frameworks & Mental Models
The eleven recommended practices
The spine of the Handbook is eleven main-level recommended practices (each with finer sublevels), presented in rough execution order with heavy iteration and tailoring expected:
- System overview (2.1) — orient a new reader: synopsis, life-cycle contexts, external entities, goals.
- System boundary (2.2) — the dividing line, defined as monitored and controlled variables.
- Operational concepts (2.3) — black-box usage scenarios as textual use cases.
- Environmental assumptions (2.4) — the obligations the system places back on its world.
- Functional architecture (2.5) — group functions by what changes together; dependency diagrams.
- Revise for constraints (2.6) — bend the ideal architecture to absorb safety/legacy/platform reality.
- System modes (2.7) — the externally visible behavioral discontinuities and their transitions.
- Detailed behavior & performance (2.8) — ideal value, tolerance, latency per variable.
- Software requirements (2.9) — the four-variable extension from system to software.
- Subsystem allocation (2.10) — split the spec into independently buildable subsystem specs.
- Rationale (2.11) — the why, cited as the single most cost-effective practice.
The system boundary = monitored & controlled variables
The boundary is not an org-chart box; it is the set of monitored variables (environmental quantities the system senses directly) and controlled variables (quantities it affects directly). The elimination test identifies them: a true boundary variable would still exist in the world if the system vanished. Keep variables abstract (a number with range and precision) — never a wire format like an ARINC 429 word — and define the lower, more volatile physical interfaces (discrete I/O, messages, fields, protocols) separately. Split a formatted display (altitude in blinking red) into its underlying value plus a status; rendering is HMI design, not boundary.
Operational concepts via use cases; assumptions pointed outward
Before detailed requirements, describe the system as a black box through use cases: actors, primary actor, preconditions, postconditions, a main success ("sunny day") scenario first, then exceptions and alternate courses as extensions. Trace each to system goals, link steps to functions, and use the walkthrough as a discovery tool for missing variables. Environmental assumptions are requirements pointed outward — the obligations the system levies on its world, from type/range/units up to plant models. Assumptions + requirements form a precondition/postcondition contract that enables independent component development and safe reuse. Give every monitored variable a status attribute (Valid/Invalid, unknown/stale) so untrustworthy data forces a mode change rather than being silently used.
Functional architecture: group by what changes together
A real specification cannot be a flat list. Organize requirements around a recursive functional architecture — group functions that are closely related and likely to change together (the Isolette's operator-facing functions collapse into one Manage Operator Interface). Draw dependency diagrams with monitored/controlled/internal variables as arrows. Label arrows with stable, high-level problem-domain concepts; seal volatile dependencies inside functions and push them deep, building firewalls against change. The structure doubles as traceability. Build the ideal architecture from the problem domain first (2.5), then revise it (2.6) to absorb safety, legacy, and platform constraints — deforming it as little as possible, since the problem domain outlasts any implementation.
Safety drives revision: FHA → PSSA → fault tree
For safety-critical systems, safety analysis forces architecture revision. The FHA names hazards (Isolette H1: prolonged exposure to unsafe heat/cold, catastrophic, target < 10⁻⁹/hr); the PSSA finds which functions could realize them and, via a fault tree, apportions failure-probability budgets. When a per-component budget is infeasible or too costly, change the architecture (add an independent Monitor) rather than buy ultra-reliable parts — which relaxes the budget. Then follow the change through the full cascade: overview, operational concepts, exception cases, boundary, assumptions, diagrams, high-level requirements.
Modes and the requirement structure
A mode is an externally visible discontinuity in behavior — the same stimulus produces different responses in INIT vs. NORMAL vs. FAILED. Only introduce a mode for an observable discontinuity; define every transition, including latching (FAILED persists until power cycle). Then write each detailed requirement as condition (mode + variable constraints) → assignment of an ideal value. Build the ideal value function variable by variable so every controlled/internal variable has exactly one value in every state; mark UNSPECIFIED — and document it — where none is meaningful. Enforce completeness (every state assigned), consistency (no state assigned twice — watch < vs. <=), and non-duplication; a condition/event/mode table makes the first two checkable by inspection. Attach latency (max lag) to every controlled variable and tolerance (allowed deviation) to every numerical one, each tethered by rationale to the environmental assumptions (the Isolette's 6-second heat latency comes from the 1°F/min drift and the sensor's 0.1°F resolution). Internal variables never get latency or tolerance.
The four-variable model: system → software requirements
Software cannot touch real-world quantities, so software requirements are an extension of system requirements, built on the four-variable model (Parnas/Madey, via SCR): MON, CON, NAT, REQ, plus the INPUT/OUTPUT variables the software actually reads/writes and the IN/OUT relations between them. Split the raw software relation into IN' (recreate the monitored-variable images MON'), OUT' (drive outputs from controlled-variable images CON'), and REQ' (which reuses the system's ideal value function unchanged). IN'/OUT' are the driver layer (change when hardware changes); REQ' is the application layer (changes when behavior changes). Every input/output needs a definition, an accuracy bound, a latency bound, and a status attribute. Confirm the end-to-end budget survives sensing lag + actuation lag + computation time. Map artifacts onto DO-178B high-level/low-level requirements and flag derived requirements (design choices affecting visible behavior or safety) to the safety assessment. The prime mark (MON', CON') is a humility reminder: every software image is a delayed, slightly-wrong copy of reality.
Subsystem allocation and rationale
For large systems, allocate by carving along function boundaries (FCS → Flight Guidance + Autopilot). Keep a duplicate of each allocated function and its high-level requirements in the parent so each subsystem's topmost requirement traces to an identical parent requirement. Expose the parent's internal variables as monitored/controlled variables at the subsystem interface; make each subsystem spec complete on its own; keep composed latencies/tolerances within the parent's end-to-end budgets. Finally, rationale records the why (separate from the what of requirements and the how of design) for non-obvious requirements, non-obvious assumptions, and every specific value or range. Capture it at the moment of authoring; keep it short; cite long documents rather than copying; and never park binding behavior in it (it is non-binding and never verified). The "93°F test": a bare safety-critical number without rationale invites a cost-driven substitution that could be fatal.
Chapter Index
| # | Practices | Key content |
|---|
| ch01 | Foundations | What separates a good spec from a bad one (Parnas: "what, not how"); the named lineage (SCR, four-variable model, CoRE, RSML/RSML-e/SpecTRM, use cases); the eleven recommended practices; the two running examples |
| ch02 | 2.1–2.2 | System overview (synopsis, contexts, goals); the boundary as monitored/controlled variables; the elimination test; abstraction over wire format; physical interfaces |
| ch03 | 2.3–2.4 | Operational concepts as textual use cases (sunny-day first); environmental assumptions as outward obligations; the precondition/postcondition contract; status attributes |
| ch04 | 2.5–2.6 | Functional architecture grouped by change; dependency diagrams; firewalls; ideal vs. revised architecture; FHA/PSSA/fault tree driving safety revision; the change cascade |
| ch05 | 2.7–2.8 | Modes as observable discontinuities and transitions; condition→assignment; ideal value function; completeness/consistency/non-duplication; latency and tolerance; tabular formats |
| ch06 | 2.9–2.10 | The four-variable model; IN'/REQ'/OUT' extended software requirements; bit-level inputs/outputs; DO-178B mapping; derived requirements; subsystem allocation and composed budgets |
| ch07 | 2.11 + Summary | Rationale as the why (three targets); non-binding; capture at authoring; the cost case; the "93°F test"; the Handbook's overall framing and tailoring message |
Topic Index
- Allocation / subsystem allocation → ch06, ch08
- And/or tables → ch05
- Architecture (functional) → ch04
- Architecture revision for constraints → ch04
- Boundary (system boundary) → ch02
- Completeness / consistency / non-duplication → ch05
- Context diagram → ch02, ch08
- Controlled variable → ch02, ch05
- CoRE methodology → ch01, ch04, ch05
- Deadband / hysteresis → ch08
- Dependency diagram → ch04
- Derived requirement → ch06
- Detailed behavior and performance requirements → ch05
- DO-178B / DO-248B mapping → ch06
- Elimination test → ch02
- Environmental assumptions → ch03
- Exception case / alternate course → ch03, ch04
- External entity → ch02, ch03
- FHA (Functional Hazard Assessment) → ch04, ch08
- Firewalls (against change) → ch04
- Four-variable model (MON/CON/NAT/REQ) → ch06, ch01
- Functions (system functions) → ch04, ch03
- Goals (system goals) → ch02, ch07
- Hazard / safety requirement → ch08, ch04
- Ideal value function → ch05
- IN' / REQ' / OUT' (extended software requirements) → ch06
- Internal variable → ch04, ch05
- Intent specification → ch01
- Isolette Thermostat (example) → ch08
- Latency → ch05, ch06
- Lineage (SCR / CoRE / RSML / SpecTRM / use cases) → ch01
- Mode → ch05
- Mode confusion → ch05
- Monitored variable → ch02, ch05
- NAT relationship (assumptions) → ch03, ch06
- Operational concepts → ch03
- Parnas criterion ("what, not how") → ch01
Supporting Files
- glossary.md — key terms (monitored/controlled variables, four-variable model, ideal value function, latency/tolerance, modes, rationale…), alphabetical, with chapter references
- patterns.md — eleven reusable techniques (define the boundary, drive operational concepts with use cases, change-tolerant architecture, safety-driven revision, condition→assignment requirements, four-variable software bridge, allocation, rationale) with When/How/Trade-offs
- cheatsheet.md — the eleven practices table, the four-variable model at a glance, the requirement structure, the three quality checks, decision rules, and tells & smells
Scope & Limits
Covers: requirements engineering for real-time, embedded control systems per the FAA Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32) — the eleven recommended practices (system overview through rationale); the monitored/controlled-variable system boundary and physical interfaces; operational concepts via textual use cases; environmental assumptions and the requirements contract; the change-tolerant functional architecture and its safety-driven revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree); system modes; detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value, tolerance, latency, completeness/consistency); the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B high/low-level and derived requirements); subsystem allocation; and the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples.
Thin on / does not cover: information-system, enterprise, business, and agile/iterative requirements styles (the slant is sensor/actuator control systems — reinterpret "monitored/controlled" with care elsewhere); requirements-management process, tooling, and DOORS-style traceability databases; full HMI/operator-interface design (named as a parallel track, not taught); and the formal-methods internals of SCR, RSML/RSML-e, SpecTRM, and the SCR analysis tools — the Handbook names this lineage and borrows its ideas but does not re-teach the notations. For sentence-level requirement craft (singular, verifiable, EARS-style) use the requirements-writing pack; for the safety process the Handbook hooks into, use faa-system-safety / mil-std-882; for the broader SE canon use sebok / nasa-npr-7123.
Does not reproduce the standards it cites — IEEE Std 1233, IEEE Std 830-1998, RTCA DO-178B / DO-248B / DO-278, and SAE ARP 4754 / ARP 4761 — which remain the copyright of their publishers; it names them and describes how its practices relate to them in original words.
Jurisdiction: US Government work prepared for the FAA — public domain (not subject to US copyright). The guidance is a set of recommended practices, explicitly meant to be tailored, not a mandatory standard. Source version: DOT/FAA/AR-08/32, Final Report, June 2009.
