Task 1 (Inconsistency) Task 2 (Change Management) Task 3 (Decision making) Mission 1 (Impact) Mission 2 (Issue Report) 📊 View Summary ← Classroom
Day 2 Task 01 Mismatch detection

Task 01. Consistency Check

Learn practical methods for automatically detecting hidden contradictions between different planning documents using Codex Client and constructing action reports.

Task 01 Specification Inconsistency Detection Practice Guide

📥 Practice Input

  • • meeting-notes.md (meeting minutes)
  • • requirements.md (Requirements definition)
  • • screen-specification.md (Screen definition)

📤 Practice output (Output)

  • • Summary report table of inconsistencies and actions taken

🛠️Practical guide to follow along

  1. Create file for practice: Click the download buttons below to download 3 files automation/ Save it within the folder.
  2. Codex Review Delegation: In the Codex Client prompt input window, Codex request promptBuild by sending .
  3. Report check: In the printed report, check whether the intended contradictions, such as membership withdrawal, automatic cancellation of reservation, conflict, and errors in the evaluation subject's interest and reluctance, are accurately derived.

Download practice materials

Codex request prompt

Task 01 PromptCompare 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.

Expected results report

Category Findings and Contradictions Influence reference document Recommended Action
Policy/Function In the meeting minutes, the 10% fee refund policy for cancellation of reservations was confirmed, but the requirements definition (`requirements.md`) was completely missing related information. high meeting minutes Reservation cancellation and 10% penalty refund function requirements must be additionally reflected in the requirements definition document.
Policy/Screen When a member withdraws, the meeting minutes define 'automatic cancellation and full refund' for existing reservations, but the requirements document defines 'retention and maintenance', and the screen definition defines 'hidden processing without pop-up information', so all three documents are different. high meeting minutes After coordination with the planning team, it is necessary to unify the withdrawal logic of the requirements and screen definitions based on the meeting minutes.
Function/Screen In the meeting minutes and screen definitions, it was designed so that 'the user (Customer) evaluates the expert (Expert)', but in the requirements document (FR-004), the subjects were written in the opposite direction so that 'the expert (Expert) evaluates the user (Customer)'. high meeting minutes FR-004 evaluation subject in the requirements definition has been revised and reflected as Customer.
screen In the meeting minutes, it is stated that 'reservation request button is disabled' for non-members, but the screen definition (SCR-001) contradicts it by 'activating non-member reservation button' and entering the schedule without encouraging registration. middle meeting minutes Modified the non-member home screen reservation flow in the screen definition to ‘Induce deactivation or registration pop-up’

💡 AI utilization and learning points

AI is not a ‘correct answer writer’ ‘Reviewer’Verification productivity is maximized when training with . It is a practical methodology that saves about 100 times the cost of rework due to design omission by verifying inconsistencies between the three major documents in advance.