Day 1 Step 5
Merge meeting notes, functional requirements, and open questions; run AI Lint; share by email.
requirements-specification.md
Day 2 · System Flow, Consistency & Change Control
Today, we did not stop after completing a requirements document. We expanded it into a project operating system that visualizes interactions, detects contradictions, traces the ripple effects of change, and preserves decision history.
We moved beyond document generation and used Codex as a system-design reviewer, change manager, and project auditor.
We merged the Day 1 outputs into one requirements specification and ran AI Lint. We then designed user–client–server–database interactions and data flows, cross-checked project documents for contradictions and omissions, traced change requests across UI, API, database, and documentation, and extracted decisions and follow-up work from conversations.
We fixed the requirements as a baseline, then expanded step by step into system design and project control.
Merge meeting notes, functional requirements, and open questions; run AI Lint; share by email.
requirements-specification.md
Represent user–client–server–database interactions and exception flows in a sequence diagram.
Mermaid + Data Flow
Compare meeting notes, requirements, and screen specifications to identify conflicts, omissions, and the authoritative source.
consistency-report.md
Record the UI/API impact of requirements changes and the decisions and pending items hidden in meeting conversations.
impact-analysis.md + decision-log.md
Report impacts across screens, APIs, databases, and documents, plus the urgency and priority of major issues.
project-issue-report.md
These labs do not merely create separate files. Together, they control one requirements lifecycle.
Interaction and data-movement design
Design Consistency Auditor
meeting-notes.md + requirements.md + screen-specification.mdconsistency-report.mdChange Control & Impact Trace
impact-analysis.md with High/Medium/Low prioritiesDecision Archiving & Task Tracking
messenger-chat.mdSystem-wide ripple-effect analysis
Project Tracking & Issue Management
Requirements quality often collapses through broken document links and unmanaged changes, not through the wording of one sentence.
Finding a conflict is not enough. The team must identify which document has final authority before it can decide what to fix.
One authentication change can alter UI components, API payloads, database schemas, tests, and user guidance.
If only the conclusion is recorded, the same debate returns. Preserve the background, rationale, owner, date, and status.
The original English prompts from the course pages are preserved below. Expand any lab to review or copy it.
Read the following three files and create a requirements-specification.md file, which is a requirements definition that merges them. -meeting-notes.md - functional-requirements.md - open-questions.md At the same time, analyze errors in the requirements document based on the six rules below. [Verification Rules] 1. Requirement ID duplicate? 2. Is the requirement ID missing? 3. Is the user role missing? 4. Whether normal and exception flows are missing 5. Whether verification criteria are omitted 6. Whether to use ambiguous expressions (ambiguous words: conveniently, quickly, as necessary, appropriately, normally) The error verification results are displayed at the beginning of the output window in the format below, and the contents of the requirements-specification.md file are combined and displayed below. [Output Format] PASS: No duplicate requirement IDs ERROR: FR-004 Verification criteria missing WARNING: Use of ambiguous expression “conveniently” in FR-007
Using the Gmail plugin, the contents of the requirements-specification.md file you just verified and Send an email according to the conditions below based on the list of open questions in open-questions.md. - Recipient (To): [Enter the email address of the representative or decision maker who will receive feedback here] - Email subject: [Approval Request] Review of expert consultation service requirements definition and coordination of undetermined policies - Body structure: - Report on completion of integrated verification of planning documents - Major open questions requiring urgent planning decisions (Summary tips for Q-001 ~ Q-004) - Feedback response deadline information
Compare and analyze the three documents ‘meeting-notes.md’, ‘requirements.md’, and ‘screen-specification.md’ in the project folder. Find and organize items that are contradictory or inconsistent between each document, or items that exist in one document but are missing from the other. Print the results according to the requirements below. 1. Organize the results in the form of a Markdown table with the following columns: ‘Classification (functions/screens/policies/terms, etc.)’, ‘Findings and contradictions’, ‘Impact level (high/medium/low)’, ‘Highest authority standard document’, and ‘Recommended action’. 2. When entering development and testing, indicate the impact level as 'high' for matters that may cause fatal rework. 3. Do not create arbitrary answers, but derive comparative analysis results based on facts only based on the document text.
First, analyze which policy has been changed by comparing the 'requirements-before.md' and 'requirements-after.md' files in the project folder. After that, analyze which part of the ‘screen-specification-v2.md’ and ‘api-specification.md’ documents, which remain at the v1.0 level, where the changed policy content should be reflected. The results are output in a Markdown table format according to the format below: 1. ‘Change items’, ‘Before change’, ‘After change’, ‘Scope of influence (screen/API)’, ‘Actions (specific modification guide required)’ 2. Additionally, based on the v2.0 requirements, classify the importance of parts that require modification in the order of ‘high/medium/low’ and mark them in the column.
Read the 'messenger-chat.md' conversation log in the project folder and create Decision Log and Pending Items for project management and tracking. Please perform the analysis according to the conditions below. 1. For matters that have been decided, please fill out the ‘Decision Log’ table. The column must include ‘decision item’, ‘decision content’, ‘decision background/basis’, ‘decision date’, ‘person in charge/subject’, and ‘status’. 2. Organize matters that have not yet been decided and require follow-up review or are on hold in the ‘Pending Items’ table. In the column, please include ‘Pending items’, ‘Follow-up details’, ‘Person in charge’, and ‘Planned due date’. 3. Please do not write fictitious dates or decision-making entities that are not based on the conversation log text.
If the mobile phone authentication function is added to membership registration, please find all affected screens, APIs, DBs, and documents and prepare an impact analysis report.
Please write a project issue report that summarizes the main issues of the current project and includes urgency and priority.
The shared message of both videos: do not treat the first answer as the answer. Improve the quality of thinking through variety and iteration.
Jeremy Utley · EO · 13 min
How to Master AI Powered Creativity in Just 13 MinutesUse AI as an idea partner, not an answer machine. Creativity improves when you reframe a problem from multiple angles, generate many candidates, and select critically instead of relying on one prompt.
Jeremy Utley · EO
The 5 Step Playbook for 10x Your AI ProductivityAI productivity comes from problem definition, sufficient context, iterative dialogue, output verification, and reusable workflows, not from the number of tools. Today’s Codex labs applied that principle to project documents.