A youth-soccer registration pack invents a waitlist the user story never granted. The tester catalogs that miss and rewrites the prompt to stay inside the story. Which refinement practice is illustrated?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
If the pack invents a waitlist the story never gave you, call it out against the test basis and fix the prompt. That’s output analysis feeding refinement.
Full Explanation
When a youth-soccer registration pack invents a waitlist the user story never granted and the tester catalogs that miss then rewrites the prompt to stay inside the story, the refinement practice is output analysis against the test basis to find inaccuracies and refine the next prompt. Civic youth sports must not silently expand entitlements through fluent hallucinations. Declaring the invented waitlist a new official requirement without analysis fails governance and skips basis checking. Measuring only token stream speed fails as an irrelevant performance proxy. Jailbreaking the registration chatbot to force waitlist disclosure fails by ethics and scope versus basis-driven refinement. Exam caveat: compare outputs to the story/requirements, log misses, then tighten prompts. Operational check: diff generated soccer cases against the user story, file each invention as a defect in the prompt, add “do not invent waitlists” constraints, regenerate, and re-verify before league staff see the civic pack. Retain the municipal audit note so later testers can see why the decision protects public service quality and fairness. Retain the municipal audit note so later testers can see why the decision protects public service quality and fairness.