---
validationTarget: '_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/prd.md'
validationDate: '2026-03-11'
inputDocuments:
  - '_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/product-brief-l-ami-fiduciaire-2026-03-10.md'
  - '_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/research/market-fiduciary-saas-morocco-research-2026-03-10.md'
  - '_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/research/domain-moroccan-fiduciary-operations-research-2026-03-10.md'
  - '_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/research/ecosystem-partners-morocco-fiduciary-research-2026-03-10.md'
  - '_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/research/cloud-adoption-saas-trends-future-outlook-research-2026-03-11.md'
  - '_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/research/domain-moroccan-tax-regulation-digital-compliance-research-2026-03-10.md'
  - '_bmad-output/project-context.md'
validationStepsCompleted: ['step-v-01-discovery', 'step-v-02-format-detection', 'step-v-03-density-validation', 'step-v-04-brief-coverage-validation', 'step-v-05-measurability-validation', 'step-v-06-traceability-validation', 'step-v-07-implementation-leakage-validation', 'step-v-08-domain-compliance-validation', 'step-v-09-project-type-validation', 'step-v-10-smart-validation', 'step-v-11-holistic-quality-validation', 'step-v-12-completeness-validation']
validationStatus: COMPLETE
holisticQualityRating: '4/5 - Good'
overallStatus: 'Warning'
---

# PRD Validation Report

**PRD Being Validated:** _bmad-output/planning-artifacts/prd.md
**Validation Date:** 2026-03-11

## Input Documents

- **Product Brief:** product-brief-l-ami-fiduciaire-2026-03-10.md
- **Market Research:** market-fiduciary-saas-morocco-research-2026-03-10.md
- **Domain Research:** domain-moroccan-fiduciary-operations-research-2026-03-10.md
- **Ecosystem Partners Research:** ecosystem-partners-morocco-fiduciary-research-2026-03-10.md
- **Cloud/SaaS Trends Research:** cloud-adoption-saas-trends-future-outlook-research-2026-03-11.md
- **Tax Regulation Research:** domain-moroccan-tax-regulation-digital-compliance-research-2026-03-10.md
- **Project Context:** project-context.md

## Validation Findings

## Format Detection

**PRD Structure (## Level 2 Headers):**
1. Executive Summary
2. Project Classification
3. Success Criteria
4. Product Scope & Development Strategy
5. User Journeys
6. Domain-Specific Requirements
7. SaaS B2B Specific Requirements
8. Functional Requirements
9. Non-Functional Requirements

**BMAD Core Sections Present:**
- Executive Summary: Present
- Success Criteria: Present
- Product Scope: Present (as "Product Scope & Development Strategy")
- User Journeys: Present
- Functional Requirements: Present
- Non-Functional Requirements: Present

**Format Classification:** BMAD Standard
**Core Sections Present:** 6/6

**Additional Sections (beyond core 6):**
- Project Classification -- provides domain/complexity/project-type metadata
- Domain-Specific Requirements -- industry compliance and regulatory context
- SaaS B2B Specific Requirements -- multi-tenancy, RBAC, subscription tiers, billing

## Information Density Validation

**Anti-Pattern Violations:**

**Conversational Filler:** 0 occurrences

**Wordy Phrases:** 0 occurrences

**Redundant Phrases:** 0 occurrences

**Total Violations:** 0

**Severity Assessment:** Pass

**Recommendation:** PRD demonstrates excellent information density with zero violations. Language is direct, concise, and every sentence carries information weight. No filler phrases, no wordy constructions, no redundant expressions detected.

## Product Brief Coverage

**Product Brief:** product-brief-l-ami-fiduciaire-2026-03-10.md

### Coverage Map

**Vision Statement:** Fully Covered
Brief's "practice management orchestration platform for Moroccan fiduciary firms" is fully articulated in PRD Executive Summary with additional strategic depth (juridique layer vision, Experio strategic split).

**Target Users:** Fully Covered
Brief defines 5 personas (Karim/Owner, Fatima/Worker, Hassan/Client, Saad/Admin, Experio/Future). PRD covers all 5 and adds Rachid (Manager/Chef de Mission) as a dedicated persona with full user journey -- an enhancement over the brief.

**Problem Statement:** Fully Covered
Brief's fragmented workflow problem (Sage + SIMPL + WhatsApp + Excel, missed deadlines, no visibility) is fully covered in PRD Executive Summary and reinforced through user journey narratives.

**Key Features:** Fully Covered
All 5 MVP phases from brief are present in PRD "Product Scope & Development Strategy" with identical scope. Pre-Phase (terminology migration), Phase 1-5 all mapped correctly. "Already Built" foundation accurately reflected.

**Goals/Objectives:** Fully Covered
Brief's success metrics (100-150 firms Y1, >30% trial conversion, <5% churn, MRR targets) are all present in PRD Success Criteria with identical targets. PRD adds leading indicators section.

**Differentiators:** Fully Covered
Brief's 5 differentiators are covered in PRD's "What Makes This Special" section with 6 items (adds "positioned for profession's transformation" point informed by research).

**Pricing Model:** Fully Covered
Brief's 3-tier pricing (199/499/999 MAD) with per-workspace model is fully present. PRD enhances with Morocco-specific payment methods (CMI, bank transfer, CashPlus) replacing brief's Stripe-focused approach.

**Out of Scope:** Fully Covered
Brief's 9 out-of-scope items all appear in PRD Growth Features table with consistent rationale and timing.

### Coverage Summary

**Overall Coverage:** 100% -- All Product Brief content is fully covered in PRD
**Critical Gaps:** 0
**Moderate Gaps:** 0
**Informational Gaps:** 0

**PRD Enhancements Beyond Brief:**
- Added Rachid (Manager) persona with dedicated user journey
- Expanded payment methods from Stripe to Morocco-specific infrastructure (CMI, bank transfer, CashPlus)
- Added juridique layer as long-term strategic vision
- Added "profession's transformation" differentiator informed by research
- Added Domain-Specific Requirements section (CNDP, AML, fiscal compliance context)
- Added SaaS B2B Specific Requirements section (multi-tenancy model, RBAC matrix, subscription details)

**Recommendation:** PRD provides excellent coverage of Product Brief content with meaningful enhancements informed by research documents.

## Measurability Validation

### Functional Requirements

**Total FRs Analyzed:** 58 (FR1-FR58)

**Format Violations:** 0
All FRs follow proper "[Actor] can [capability]" or "System [enforces/generates/preserves]" patterns. Actors are clearly defined (Owner, Manager, Worker, External clients, System, SaaS Admin, Users).

**Subjective Adjectives Found:** 0
No subjective adjectives (easy, fast, simple, intuitive, etc.) found in any FR.

**Vague Quantifiers Found:** 0
"Multiple" appears in FR11 and FR17 but is used correctly -- FR11 refers to Owners who by definition may have multiple workspaces; FR17 refers to a bulk-select action (more than one client). Both are testable.

**Implementation Leakage:** 0
No technology names, library names, or implementation details found in FRs. Clean separation of capability from implementation.

**FR Violations Total:** 0

### Non-Functional Requirements

**Total NFRs Analyzed:** 28 (NFR1-NFR28)

**Missing Metrics:** 2
- **NFR4** (line 512): "File uploads up to 10 MB complete without timeout on 4G connections" -- "without timeout" lacks a specific max time threshold. Suggest: "complete within 60 seconds on 4G connections"
- **NFR26** (line 543): "Email notification delivery must be reliable with retry logic" -- "reliable" is subjective. Suggest: "Email notification delivery must achieve >99% delivery success rate with retry logic (up to 3 retries within 5 minutes)"

**Incomplete Template:** 3
- **NFR16** (line 530): "without performance degradation" -- lacks threshold definition. Should reference specific metrics (e.g., "while maintaining NFR1 page load targets")
- **NFR18** (line 532): "without degradation" -- same issue as NFR16. Should specify what "degradation" means in measurable terms
- **NFR20** (line 534): "without service degradation" -- same pattern. Should specify thresholds for peak load performance

**Missing Context:** 0

**Implementation Detail in NFRs:** 1 (minor)
- **NFR11** (line 522): "TOTP via Fortify" -- Fortify is a specific Laravel package. Suggest: "Two-factor authentication available for all firm users (TOTP-based)" -- implementation choice belongs in architecture, not PRD

**NFR Violations Total:** 6

### Overall Assessment

**Total Requirements:** 86 (58 FRs + 28 NFRs)
**Total Violations:** 6 (0 FR + 6 NFR)

**Severity:** Warning (5-10 violations)

**Recommendation:** FRs are excellent -- clean, testable, properly formatted with zero violations. NFRs need minor refinement: 3 instances of "without degradation" should reference specific thresholds, 2 NFRs need measurable metrics instead of subjective terms ("reliable", "without timeout"), and 1 NFR leaks implementation detail (Fortify). These are all low-effort fixes that would make the NFR section fully testable.

## Traceability Validation

### Chain Validation

**Executive Summary → Success Criteria:** Intact
Vision (practice orchestration, zero missed deadlines, firm visibility) directly maps to Success Criteria (Karim: zero missed deadlines, full visibility; Fatima: no declarations falling through; Hassan: frictionless submission). Business targets (100-150 firms, Experio channel, MRR) align with Business Success metrics. No misalignments.

**Success Criteria → User Journeys:** Intact
Every success criterion has a corresponding user journey that demonstrates achieving it:
- Karim's "zero missed deadlines" → Journey 1 (command center, priority alerts, nudge system)
- Karim's "full visibility" → Journey 1 (Monday morning dashboard scene)
- Fatima's "no declarations falling through" → Journey 3 (scoped dashboard, bulk notifications)
- Fatima's "reduced chasing" → Journey 3 (portal document receipt replaces WhatsApp)
- Hassan's "fast submission" → Journey 5 (3-minute upload, token link)
- Business "trial-to-paid" → Journey 1 (Karim converts on day 11)
- Technical success → Journey 6 (Saad monitors platform health)

**User Journeys → Functional Requirements:** Intact
All capabilities revealed in user journeys have corresponding FRs:

| Journey | Capabilities | Supporting FRs |
|---|---|---|
| J1: Karim (Setup) | Workspace, team, roles, bulk create, dashboard, alerts, nudge | FR1-FR6, FR17, FR24, FR26, FR29 |
| J2: Rachid (Coordination) | Manager dashboard, reassignment, nudge | FR19, FR24, FR30-FR31 |
| J3: Fatima (Daily Grind) | Scoped dashboard, status, bulk notify, portal docs, messaging | FR18, FR25, FR32-FR33, FR37-FR38 |
| J4: Fatima (Edge Case) | Edit declaration, audit trail, messaging | FR20, FR38, FR52 |
| J5: Hassan (Upload) | Token link, mobile upload, confirmation | FR33-FR36 |
| J6: Saad (Platform) | Admin dashboard, support inbox, monitoring | FR27-FR28, FR56-FR57 |

**Scope → FR Alignment:** Intact
All 5 MVP phases map to FR groups:
- Phase 1 (Roles) → FR3-FR4, FR7-FR11
- Phase 2 (Dashboards) → FR24-FR28
- Phase 3 (Collaboration) → FR29-FR33
- Phase 4 (Efficiency) → FR17, FR32, FR41-FR44
- Phase 5 (Archive) → FR21-FR23, FR45-FR51
- Already Built → FR1-FR2, FR5-FR6, FR12-FR16, FR34-FR40, FR52-FR55

### Orphan Elements

**Orphan Functional Requirements:** 0
All 58 FRs trace to at least one user journey or business requirement. FR57 (platform config) and FR58 (tier limits) trace to Journey 6 and the SaaS business model respectively.

**Unsupported Success Criteria:** 0
All success criteria have supporting journeys and FRs.

**User Journeys Without FRs:** 0
All journey capabilities are supported by corresponding FRs.

### Traceability Summary

**Total Traceability Issues:** 0

**Severity:** Pass

**Recommendation:** Traceability chain is intact. All requirements trace from Executive Summary vision through Success Criteria to User Journeys to Functional Requirements. No orphan FRs, no unsupported success criteria, no journeys without FR coverage. The PRD demonstrates strong end-to-end traceability.

## Implementation Leakage Validation

### Leakage by Category

**Frontend Frameworks:** 0 violations

**Backend Frameworks:** 1 violation
- **NFR11** (line 522): "TOTP via Fortify" -- Fortify is a Laravel authentication package. Suggest: "Two-factor authentication available for all firm users (TOTP-based)"

**Databases:** 1 violation
- **NFR23** (line 540): "MySQL binary logging enabled for point-in-time recovery" -- specifies MySQL as the database technology. Suggest: "Database binary/transaction logging enabled for point-in-time recovery up to last committed transaction"

**Cloud Platforms:** 0 violations

**Infrastructure:** 0 violations

**Libraries:** 0 violations

**Other Implementation Details:** 0 violations

**Note on contextual sections:** Technology terms (Laravel 12, Vue 3, Inertia.js, Spatie Media Library, Spatie Activity Log, Eloquent) appear in Executive Summary, Project Classification, and Product Scope sections as brownfield context. These are appropriate context for a brownfield PRD -- they describe what exists, not what to build. No violation.

**Note on security standards:** TLS 1.2+ and AES-256 (NFR7) are industry security standards specifying capability thresholds, not implementation choices. HTTP 404/403 (NFR9) specifies protocol behavior. CSRF (NFR15) is a security concept. All capability-relevant, not leakage.

### Summary

**Total Implementation Leakage Violations:** 2

**Severity:** Warning (2-5 violations)

**Recommendation:** Minor leakage detected in 2 NFRs. Both are low-effort fixes: remove "Fortify" from NFR11 (replace with "TOTP-based") and remove "MySQL" from NFR23 (replace with "Database binary/transaction logging"). Implementation technology choices belong in the architecture document, not in PRD requirements.

## Domain Compliance Validation

**Domain:** Fintech (fiduciary/accounting practice management)
**Complexity:** High (regulated)

### Required Special Sections (Fintech)

**Compliance Matrix:** Present (Adequate)
PRD "Domain-Specific Requirements" → "Compliance & Regulatory" section covers:
- CNDP (Law 09-08) data protection with specific requirements (EU hosting, consent mechanisms, retention policies)
- Tax & Fiscal compliance context (declaration types, Moroccan fiscal calendar, penalty awareness)
- AML context (Law 43-05) with note on indirect applicability and audit trail support
- Risk mitigations table with specific regulatory risks and mitigation strategies

**Security Architecture:** Present (Adequate)
PRD covers security across two locations:
- "Domain-Specific Requirements" → "Technical Constraints" → "Domain-Specific Security Context" (encryption context, tenant isolation rationale, token portal security)
- NFR7-NFR15 provide specific security requirements (TLS 1.2+, AES-256, tenant isolation, token security, 2FA, audit logging, CNDP compliance, session management)

**Audit Requirements:** Present (Adequate)
- FR52-FR55 define audit logging capabilities (all modifications, workspace-level view, role-scoped access)
- NFR12 specifies audit trail requirements (actor, timestamp, change details)
- AML section references audit trail support for firms' compliance obligations
- Archive system (FR45-FR51) preserves full history including audit trails

**Fraud Prevention:** Partially Present
- The PRD does not include an explicit fraud prevention section
- Risk mitigations table covers data breaches, data leakage, and document loss -- but not fraud scenarios specific to a SaaS billing context (e.g., workspace abuse, billing fraud, account manipulation)
- **Mitigating context:** L'Ami Fiduciaire is a practice management tool, not a financial transaction processor. It does not handle payments directly (billing is manual initially), does not move money, and does not process financial instruments. The fraud surface is significantly lower than a typical fintech product.

### Compliance Matrix

| Requirement | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Data Protection (CNDP/Law 09-08) | Met | EU hosting, consent mechanisms, retention policies documented |
| Tax/Fiscal Compliance Context | Met | Declaration types, fiscal calendar, penalty awareness covered |
| AML Context (Law 43-05) | Met | Indirect applicability noted, audit trails support compliance |
| Security Standards (encryption, isolation) | Met | NFR7-NFR15 cover encryption, tenant isolation, 2FA, CSRF |
| Audit Requirements | Met | FR52-FR55 + NFR12 cover comprehensive audit logging |
| Fraud Prevention | Partial | No explicit section; low fraud surface due to non-transactional nature |
| Data Residency | Met | EU hosting explicitly chosen for CNDP compliance |
| Financial Transaction Handling | N/A | Platform does not process financial transactions |

### Summary

**Required Sections Present:** 3.5/4 (Compliance Matrix, Security Architecture, Audit Requirements fully present; Fraud Prevention partially present)
**Compliance Gaps:** 1 (minor)

**Severity:** Pass (with note)

**Recommendation:** Domain compliance is strong for a fintech-classified product. The one gap (fraud prevention) is mitigated by the product's nature -- it's a practice management orchestration tool, not a financial transaction platform. Consider adding a brief note on SaaS-level fraud prevention (e.g., workspace abuse detection, subscription fraud) if billing automation is added post-MVP. No critical compliance gaps.

## Project-Type Compliance Validation

**Project Type:** saas_b2b

### Required Sections

**Tenant Model (tenant_model):** Present
"SaaS B2B Specific Requirements" → "Multi-Tenancy Model" section provides detailed tenant model: session-based workspace resolution via `current_workspace_id`, role-dependent workspace access (Worker=single, Manager=single, Owner=multiple), absolute workspace isolation with 404 responses for boundary violations.

**RBAC Matrix (rbac_matrix):** Present
"SaaS B2B Specific Requirements" → "RBAC Permission Matrix" section provides comprehensive 3-role permission matrix table (Owner, Manager/Chef de Mission, Worker) across 12 permission areas. Includes configurable Manager permissions and fixed Worker scope.

**Subscription Tiers (subscription_tiers):** Present
"SaaS B2B Specific Requirements" → "Subscription Tiers" section provides 3-tier pricing table (Starter 199 MAD, Professional 499 MAD, Enterprise 999 MAD) with per-workspace model, feature/limit breakdown, and 14-day trial details.

**Integration List (integration_list):** Present
"Domain-Specific Requirements" → "Integration Requirements" section covers MVP integrations (email, file storage) and future integrations (DGI e-invoicing, Experio sync, WhatsApp API, bank statement import).

**Compliance Requirements (compliance_reqs):** Present
"Domain-Specific Requirements" → "Compliance & Regulatory" section covers CNDP, Tax/Fiscal, AML compliance. "SaaS B2B Specific Requirements" → "Billing & Payment Methods" covers Morocco-specific payment compliance.

### Excluded Sections (Should Not Be Present)

**CLI Interface (cli_interface):** Absent ✓
**Mobile First (mobile_first):** Absent ✓ (Mobile is mentioned as future vision, not as primary design approach. Web-first with responsive design is the stated approach.)

### Compliance Summary

**Required Sections:** 5/5 present
**Excluded Sections Present:** 0 (should be 0)
**Compliance Score:** 100%

**Severity:** Pass

**Recommendation:** All required sections for saas_b2b project type are present and well-documented. No excluded sections found. The PRD correctly addresses multi-tenancy, RBAC, subscriptions, integrations, and compliance -- all essential for a B2B SaaS product.

## SMART Requirements Validation

**Total Functional Requirements:** 58

### Scoring Summary

**All scores >= 3:** 100% (58/58)
**All scores >= 4:** 94.8% (55/58)
**Overall Average Score:** 4.8/5.0

### Scoring Table (Flagged and Notable FRs Only)

55 of 58 FRs scored 5/5/5/5/5 (perfect SMART). The 3 FRs below have minor specificity/measurability gaps:

| FR # | S | M | A | R | T | Avg | Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FR5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.6 | "branding basics" is slightly vague |
| FR9 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.6 | "team management actions" is broad |
| FR57 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4.0 | "platform-level configuration" is unspecified |

**Legend:** S=Specific, M=Measurable, A=Attainable, R=Relevant, T=Traceable (1=Poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Excellent)

### Improvement Suggestions

**FR5:** "Owner can manage workspace settings (firm details, branding basics)" → Specify what "branding basics" includes (e.g., "firm logo, display name" or remove if not MVP)

**FR9:** "Manager can perform team management actions when permission is granted by Owner" → Specify which team management actions (e.g., "invite, remove, and change roles of team members")

**FR57:** "SaaS Admin can manage platform-level configuration" → Specify what configuration is manageable (e.g., "global settings, feature flags, storage limits, email templates")

### Overall Assessment

**Severity:** Pass (< 10% flagged FRs -- only 3/58 = 5.2%)

**Recommendation:** Functional Requirements demonstrate excellent SMART quality. 55/58 FRs score perfectly across all criteria. The 3 flagged FRs have minor specificity gaps (no score below 3) that could be addressed by listing specific items within each capability. This is an optional refinement -- the FRs are functional as-is.

## Holistic Quality Assessment

### Document Flow & Coherence

**Rating:** Excellent

The PRD follows a logical narrative arc: Executive Summary establishes context and vision → Project Classification anchors domain/complexity → Success Criteria defines measurable targets → Product Scope maps the build plan → User Journeys bring requirements to life through personas → Domain and SaaS sections provide specialized context → Functional Requirements enumerate capabilities → Non-Functional Requirements set quality bars.

Section transitions are natural and non-redundant. Each section builds on prior context without restating it. The brownfield context (what exists vs. what to build) is cleanly separated and consistently referenced.

### Dual Audience Effectiveness

**Score:** 5/5

**For Humans:**
- User journeys are vivid and scenario-driven (Karim's Monday morning, Fatima's WhatsApp escape, Hassan's 3-minute upload)
- Success criteria use persona names and real-world language
- Pricing and business model are immediately clear
- Phase roadmap provides strategic context

**For LLM Agents:**
- Frontmatter provides structured metadata (classification, input documents, dates)
- FRs follow consistent "[Actor] can [capability]" pattern -- highly parseable
- NFRs use numbered IDs with consistent formatting
- RBAC matrix is tabular and unambiguous
- Traceability is implicit through consistent naming (personas, phases, FR numbering)
- No conversational filler -- every sentence is actionable

### BMAD Principles Compliance

| Principle | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Information Density | Pass | Zero anti-pattern violations |
| Measurability | Partial | 6 NFR violations (vague terms, missing thresholds) |
| Traceability | Pass | Complete chain from vision to FRs, zero orphans |
| Implementation Independence | Pass (with note) | 2 minor NFR leakages (Fortify, MySQL) |
| Dual Audience | Pass | Excellent human readability + LLM parseability |
| Scope Discipline | Pass | Clear in/out scope, growth features deferred with rationale |
| Completeness | Pass | 6/6 core sections + 3 domain/project-type sections |

**BMAD Principles Score:** 6.5/7 (Measurability partial due to 6 NFR violations)

### Overall Quality Rating

**Rating:** 4/5 -- Good (Strong PRD with minor improvements needed)

**Justification:**
- Exceptional FR quality (55/58 perfect SMART scores, zero violations)
- Complete traceability chain with zero orphans
- 100% Product Brief coverage with meaningful research-informed enhancements
- Zero information density violations
- Excellent dual-audience optimization
- Minor weaknesses confined to NFRs (6 measurability + 2 implementation leakage issues)
- All issues are low-effort fixes that would elevate this to a 5/5

### Top 3 Improvements

1. **Fix NFR measurability (6 items):** Replace "without timeout" (NFR4), "without degradation" (NFR16/18/20), and "reliable" (NFR26) with specific thresholds. Add cross-references to existing metrics where applicable (e.g., "while maintaining NFR1 page load targets").

2. **Remove implementation leakage from NFRs (2 items):** Replace "TOTP via Fortify" (NFR11) with "TOTP-based" and "MySQL binary logging" (NFR23) with "Database binary/transaction logging". Implementation choices belong in the architecture document.

3. **Specify FR5, FR9, FR57 capabilities:** List the specific items within "branding basics" (FR5), "team management actions" (FR9), and "platform-level configuration" (FR57) to achieve perfect SMART scores across all 58 FRs.

## Completeness Validation

### Template Completeness

**Template Variables Found:** 0
No template variables remaining. Full PRD scan found zero instances of `{variable}`, `{{variable}}`, `[placeholder]`, or other template patterns. All content is authored.

### Content Completeness by Section

**Executive Summary:** Complete
Vision statement present, problem context articulated, brownfield foundation described, revenue model defined, 6 differentiators listed.

**Success Criteria:** Complete
4 categories (User, Business, Technical, Measurable Outcomes) with tabular metrics, specific targets, and leading indicators.

**Product Scope:** Complete
In-scope (5 MVP phases + pre-phase) and out-of-scope (8 growth features in priority table) both defined. Brownfield foundation documented. Risk mitigation table included.

**User Journeys:** Complete
6 journeys covering all 5 user types. Each journey follows narrative structure with capabilities summary. Journey requirements summary table included.

**Functional Requirements:** Complete
58 FRs organized into 10 functional groups. Proper "[Actor] can [capability]" or "System [verb]" format throughout.

**Non-Functional Requirements:** Complete
28 NFRs organized into 4 categories (Performance, Security, Scalability, Reliability & Data Protection). Metrics present for most items (6 measurability issues noted in Step V-05).

**Project Classification:** Complete
Domain, project type, complexity, and brownfield context all specified.

**Domain-Specific Requirements:** Complete
Compliance & Regulatory (CNDP, Tax/Fiscal, AML), Technical Constraints, Integration Requirements, and Risk Mitigations all covered.

**SaaS B2B Specific Requirements:** Complete
Multi-Tenancy Model, RBAC Permission Matrix, Subscription Tiers, and Billing & Payment Methods all covered with tabular detail.

### Section-Specific Completeness

**Success Criteria Measurability:** All measurable
Every criterion has a specific metric/target in tabular format. Leading indicators defined separately.

**User Journeys Coverage:** Yes - covers all user types
Owner (Karim), Manager (Rachid), Worker (Fatima x2 including edge case), Client (Hassan), Platform Admin (Saad). All 5 user types covered with 6 total journeys.

**FRs Cover MVP Scope:** Yes
All 5 MVP phases map to FR groups (verified in Traceability step V-06). Pre-phase (terminology migration) is a development task, not a functional requirement -- correctly excluded. Brownfield features (already built) are included as FRs for completeness.

**NFRs Have Specific Criteria:** Some
22/28 NFRs have fully specific, measurable criteria. 6 NFRs have vague terms noted in Step V-05 (NFR4, NFR11, NFR16, NFR18, NFR20, NFR26). No NFR is missing criteria entirely -- all 6 have partial specificity.

### Frontmatter Completeness

**stepsCompleted:** Present (11 steps listed)
**classification:** Present (projectType, domain, complexity, projectContext)
**inputDocuments:** Present (12 documents listed -- 1 brief, 5 research, 1 project context, 5 project docs)
**date:** Present (2026-03-11)

**Additional frontmatter fields present:**
- workflowType: Present
- documentCounts: Present (briefs, research, brainstorming, projectDocs, projectContext)

**Frontmatter Completeness:** 4/4 (plus 2 additional fields)

### Completeness Summary

**Overall Completeness:** 100% (9/9 sections complete)

**Critical Gaps:** 0
**Minor Gaps:** 0 (NFR measurability issues are quality concerns, not completeness gaps -- all 28 NFRs exist with content)

**Severity:** Pass

**Recommendation:** PRD is complete with all required sections and content present. No template variables remain. All 9 sections have substantive content. Frontmatter is fully populated. The 6 NFR measurability issues identified in earlier validation steps are quality refinements, not completeness gaps.
