Setting the Bar: Pass/Fail Criteria Wording Examples that Power High-Impact Technical Documentation

1) Anchor and define: What pass/fail criteria are and why wording quality matters

Pass/fail criteria are explicit, binary checks that determine whether a technical artifact—such as an RFC or design document—meets the minimum standard for its intended purpose. Instead of asking “Is this doc good?”, pass/fail criteria ask “Does this doc demonstrate X, Y, and Z in observable ways?” This shift is crucial because it removes subjective interpretation and focuses attention on the artifact’s outcomes, not the author’s seniority, charisma, or style preferences. When criteria are well written, reviewers align quickly, authors know exactly what to deliver, and organizational standards can be enforced consistently.

The quality of wording matters because language is the mechanism that turns expectations into action. Vague phrasing (“sufficient detail”) forces reviewers to translate standards on the fly, which creates inconsistency. Overly broad phrasing (“covers all edge cases”) sets an impossible bar and invites debate rather than determination. Effective wording makes the criterion observable (you can point to evidence), objective (others would reach the same judgment), and tightly scoped to the artifact (what is present in the RFC/design doc) rather than the author (intentions, process, or personal competence). In other words, good pass/fail wording converts ambiguous expectations into verifiable signals that the artifact contains what the organization needs to make sound decisions.

A useful mental model is to imagine a reviewer with no context and limited time. Could they apply the criterion by scanning the artifact and its referenced sources, and make the same decision another reviewer would make? If yes, the criterion wording is likely doing its job. If not, the wording probably lacks an actionable verb, a measurable threshold, a specified evidence source, or an unambiguous condition—including clear failure triggers. Precision at the wording level is what closes the gap between intent and repeatable practice.

2) Construct the wording: a mini-framework and templates for writing pass/fail criteria

To construct robust pass/fail criteria, use a compact framework built from four components:

• Actionable verb: The verb should describe what the artifact must do or contain (e.g., “lists,” “quantifies,” “links,” “justifies”). Avoid interpretive verbs like “addresses” or “discusses” unless they are paired with specific evidence.
• Measurable threshold: Define the minimum acceptable level (e.g., “at least three,” “<= 1% error rate,” “for all P0 dependencies”). This turns qualitative expectations into quantitative checks where possible.
• Evidence source: Name where reviewers will find proof (e.g., “in the Risks section,” “via Appendix A benchmark table,” “by link to Team X SLA”). Anchoring to an explicit location reduces search cost and ambiguity.
• Unambiguous condition with failure triggers: State what counts as success and what causes failure (e.g., “fails if any P0 dependency lacks an owner and escalation path”). Clarity about failure is as important as clarity about success.

These components work best when the scope is strictly tied to the artifact. The criterion should not evaluate how the author ran a meeting, how many stakeholders they consulted, or whether they “demonstrate leadership.” Instead, it should check whether the document itself contains necessary content, references, decisions, and evidence. This keeps the pass/fail decision inside the document boundary and makes it observable.

When writing criteria, consider three complementary templates that encode the framework:

• Inclusion template: “The document [verb] [item(s)] [quantity/coverage] in [section/location], sourced from [evidence], and fails if [failure trigger].” This template is suitable for content completeness.
• Validation template: “The document [verb] [metric/test] showing [threshold], using [method/source], and fails if [boundary/omission].” This template is suited for performance, scalability, or quality assertions.
• Decision template: “The document [verb] [decision/choice] with [justification] referencing [trade-off framework/evidence], and fails if [missing rationale/conflict with constraint].” This template is appropriate for architectural choices and trade-offs.

Each template enforces the same discipline: make the check performable by a third party, within the artifact, and with minimal interpretation. Resist the urge to stack multiple expectations into one criterion; instead, write small, discrete criteria that are individually verifiable. Tight scoping reduces ambiguity and allows partial pass/fail outcomes to be diagnosed quickly.

3) Apply and calibrate: pass/fail criteria wording for RFCs/design docs with calibration checks

Applying the framework to RFCs and design documents means mapping criteria to the document’s core functions: enabling decision-making, clarifying execution, reducing risk, and aligning stakeholders. For each function, write criteria that reflect observable content rather than general quality impressions. Here is how to approach the application phase at a high level, with emphasis on calibration considerations rather than concrete examples:

• Decision readiness: The document should make a specific decision visible, with supporting evidence and known constraints. When calibrating wording, verify that reviewers can locate the decision, the options considered, and the rationale without guessing. A calibration check is to have two reviewers independently mark where the decision and its justification live; if they disagree, the wording or structure isn’t precise enough.
• Execution clarity: The document should translate intent into a feasible plan: scope, milestones, dependencies, and operational ownership. Calibrate by checking whether reviewers can identify named owners, timelines, and dependency contracts from the document alone. If they need hallway context, the criterion wording likely fails the observability test.
• Risk reduction: The document should surface risks, assumptions, and mitigations in a way that can be tested later. Calibrate by seeing if reviewers can enumerate the top risks and find corresponding mitigations, and whether the thresholds for concern are explicit. If “risk” is treated as a narrative rather than a set of measurable conditions, the wording needs tightening.
• Alignment and communication: The document should tie to upstream goals (OKRs) and downstream consumers (teams, services, customers). Calibrate by validating that reviewers can trace each major requirement to a specific OKR or service contract. If the connection is rhetorical (“supports company growth”) rather than traceable (“maps to KR-2.1”), the criteria wording lacks specificity.

Consistency across reviewers depends on two practices: using the same pass/fail wording in both author checklists and reviewer rubrics, and running calibration sessions where peers apply the wording to the same document and compare outcomes. During calibration, attend to ambiguous phrasing (“adequate,” “robust,” “detailed”), hidden thresholds (“fast,” “scalable”), and unspecified evidence sources (“as shown,” “as discussed”). Replace these with concrete verbs, thresholds, and sources. A simple stress test is to ask: Could a new engineer with no project history apply this criterion and arrive at the same decision within five minutes? If not, refine the wording.

Finally, ensure your criteria sets align with Staff+ expectations by mapping each criterion to a clear purpose. This mapping acts as a design principle for the criteria themselves:

• Risk reduction: Criteria ensure that unknowns, failure modes, and mitigations are stated in ways that can be validated later.
• Stakeholder alignment: Criteria ensure that stakeholders, their concerns, and their sign-offs are visible in the artifact.
• Execution clarity: Criteria ensure that owners, milestones, and dependencies are explicit and time-bound.

This purposeful mapping keeps criteria from bloating into style guidance and maintains focus on organizational value. It also simplifies status conversations: an RFC can pass or fail on risk-readiness, alignment-readiness, and execution-readiness independently, enabling targeted revisions.

4) Integrate: tie to readiness checks, peer review, and OKRs, with practice guidance and a checklist

Pass/fail criteria should integrate seamlessly with the broader lifecycle of technical documentation: readiness checks before review, peer review itself, and ongoing tracking against organizational objectives. The integration works because well-worded criteria act as interfaces between stages—each stage uses the same language to answer different questions.

• Readiness checks: Before sending a document to broad review, authors run a self-check using the same criteria the reviewers will use. This eliminates churn caused by missing sections, unclear decisions, or absent evidence. Because the criteria include explicit failure triggers, authors know exactly what to fix before requesting attention from busy stakeholders.
• Peer review: Reviewers apply the criteria as a rubric. Instead of subjective commentary, feedback is anchored to binary outcomes. When a criterion fails, the reviewer points to the missing evidence source or the unmet threshold. This not only shortens review cycles but also trains the team to write to observable standards.
• Benchmarks linked to OKRs: Over time, teams can report on pass rates for specific criteria categories (risk, alignment, execution) and correlate them with delivery outcomes. This closes the loop between documentation quality and organizational performance. Criteria that consistently fail or correlate with delivery slippage reveal where templates, training, or ownership need attention.

To support integration, adopt a short, repeatable practice routine that keeps wording tight and consistent across documents and teams:

• Start from purpose: For each criterion, write down which organizational outcome it serves (risk reduction, stakeholder alignment, execution clarity). If the connection is weak, either sharpen the criterion or discard it.
• Scope to the artifact: Remove checks that depend on external behaviors (meetings held, authors consulted). Replace them with checks that verify artifact content (links, tables, thresholds, owners).
• Anchor evidence: For every criterion, specify exactly where a reviewer finds proof. If the proof is a data source, name it. If it is a section, title it. If it is an appendix, link it.
• Set thresholds: Convert adjectives into numbers or enumerations. If a number is impossible, define coverage (“for all P0 services”) or boundaries (“no more than one open P1 risk”).
• State failure triggers: Make failure conditions explicit to avoid “almost” passes. A crisp failure trigger makes decisions faster and revisions more targeted.
• Calibrate with peers: Apply the criteria to a shared document and compare pass/fail outcomes. Adjust wording where outcomes diverge.
• Freeze and reuse: Once calibrated, standardize the criteria in templates and rubrics. Reuse is what produces organizational learning and predictable quality.

A practical checklist can keep the wording discipline intact during busy cycles:

• Is the criterion written with an actionable verb that describes a document behavior (lists, quantifies, links, justifies)?
• Does it include a measurable threshold or explicit coverage boundary?
• Does it point to a specific evidence source within or linked from the artifact?
• Does it contain an unambiguous success condition and at least one explicit failure trigger?
• Is it scoped to the artifact, not the author’s process or intent?
• Can two independent reviewers apply it in under five minutes and reach the same decision?
• Does it map to a Staff+ purpose (risk reduction, alignment, execution clarity) and connect to at least one OKR or operational benchmark?
• Has the wording been calibrated with example documents and peer review sessions?

When teams use this checklist alongside the framework and templates, the quality of documentation improves in visible, measurable ways. Reviews become faster and more consistent, authors write with confidence, and leaders can rely on documents as decision instruments rather than narrative artifacts. Over time, the organization can evolve its criteria to reflect new standards—security requirements, reliability targets, cost constraints—without changing the underlying approach. The key is to preserve the characteristics that make pass/fail wording powerful: observable evidence, objective thresholds, tight artifact scope, and clear failure conditions.

In summary, pass/fail criteria are the grammar of high-impact technical documentation. They translate strategic expectations into verifiable statements that any reviewer can apply. By constructing criteria with actionable verbs, measurable thresholds, explicit evidence sources, and unambiguous failure triggers—and by aligning them to Staff+ purposes and OKRs—you transform RFCs and design docs into reliable instruments for decision-making, execution, and risk management. The result is not only better documents, but also better outcomes: faster alignment, fewer surprises, and stronger delivery discipline across the organization.