Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper empirically evaluates the performance of AI-based tools in assessing system requirement quality against INCOSE criteria, comparing them to expert systems engineers. The study assessed requirements for consistency, completeness, clarity, and testability, analyzing both accuracy and decision logic. Results show AI tools excel at consistent, rapid preliminary assessments of syntactic and structural qualities, but expert judgment remains crucial for contextual interpretation and ambiguity resolution.
AI can rapidly flag syntactic requirement flaws, but don't expect it to replace the nuanced judgment of experienced systems engineers anytime soon.
Artificial Intelligence is increasingly introduced into systems engineering activities, particularly within requirements engineering, where quality assessment and validation remain heavily dependent on expert judgment. While recent AI tools demonstrate promising capabilities in analyzing and generating requirements, their role within formal systems engineering processes-and their alignment with established INCOSE criteria-remains insufficiently understood. This paper investigates the extent to which AI-based tools can support systems engineers in evaluating requirement quality, without replacing professional expertise. The research adopts a structured systems engineering methodology to compare AI-assisted requirement evaluation with human expert assessment. A controlled study was conducted in which system requirements were evaluated against established INCOSE ``good requirement''criteria by both experienced systems engineers and an AI-based assessment tool. The evaluation focused on consistency, completeness, clarity, and testability, examining not only accuracy but also the decision logic underlying each assessment. Results indicate that AI tools can provide consistent and rapid preliminary assessments, particularly for syntactic and structural quality attributes. However, expert judgment remains essential for contextual interpretation, ambiguity resolution, and trade-off reasoning. Rather than positioning AI as a replacement for systems engineers, the findings support its role as a decision-support mechanism within the RE lifecycle. From a systems engineering perspective, this study contributes empirical evidence on how AI can be integrated into RE workflows while preserving traceability, accountability, and engineering consistency.
