During Build, the BA's role shifts from active creation to active availability and early review, and reading skill is precisely what makes genuine, substantive early review possible, since without it the BA can only ask whether something is finished and trust the answer, rather than actually verifying the built logic against the original requirement directly. This matters because the handoff between Build and Test is exactly the kind of transition point where mismatches commonly occur, and catching a mismatch through direct reading during an early, informal review is significantly cheaper than discovering the same mismatch later during formal User Acceptance Testing, which would require a failed test case, a bug report, rework, and a second testing cycle. Reading skill therefore directly enables catching requirement-versus-build mismatches at the cheapest possible point in the process, rather than relying entirely on secondhand verbal assurance that something was built correctly.

A BA should not accept the label at face value, since an element's label is simply a name the Admin chose during configuration and provides no actual guarantee about what the underlying condition logic genuinely checks, meaning the label could be accurate, outdated, or even meaningfully different from the real evaluated condition inside the element. The appropriate approach is to ask the Admin to walk through or show the actual condition logic the Decision element evaluates, comparing this real, specific logic directly against the original requirement's definition of urgency, rather than assuming a descriptive label alone constitutes sufficient verification. This distinction between an element's surface-level name and its actual underlying logic is precisely why genuine reading and verification, rather than passive label-reading, is the core skill this module builds.

Verifying only the happy path leaves entirely unconfirmed whether the edge cases documented in the original Acceptance Criteria, such as scenarios involving exceptions, boundary conditions, or alternate paths, were actually built at all, since the happy path being correct provides no information whatsoever about whether more complex edge-case logic was implemented, overlooked, or implemented incorrectly. This directly undermines the value of writing multiple Acceptance Criteria in the first place, a discipline specifically meant to ensure edge cases receive explicit attention rather than being implicitly assumed to work, and edge cases are precisely where genuine bugs and gaps most commonly hide in real implementations, since they require more deliberate, careful handling than the simpler, more obvious primary scenario. A genuinely thorough build verification must explicitly trace through every documented Acceptance Criterion individually, not just confirm the simplest, most obvious scenario functions as expected.

This is not necessarily a building mistake by the Admin, since this kind of gap very commonly traces back to an originally ambiguous or insufficiently explicit requirement that did not clearly specify the need for multiple distinct approval tiers, rather than the Admin simply failing to correctly implement a clearly stated specification. The BA should approach this finding with genuine curiosity about its root cause rather than an assumption of fault, investigating whether the original FRD requirement and Acceptance Criteria genuinely and unambiguously specified the two-tier structure, since if the original documentation was vague on this point, the appropriate response is recognizing this as a documentation gap to address going forward, not framing it as an Admin error. This approach also directly reinforces the value of the precise, unambiguous requirement-writing discipline covered in an earlier module, since a genuinely clear, explicit original requirement makes this exact category of under-building mistake significantly less likely to occur in the first place.

A BA confidently raising a concern that built logic does not match documented Acceptance Criteria is operating squarely within their genuine area of responsibility and expertise, since verifying that a build actually satisfies the originally agreed, documented requirement is a core BA function regardless of the specific technical implementation details involved, and this kind of concern should be raised directly and confidently when a genuine mismatch is found. Questioning why an Admin chose one specific valid technical implementation approach over another, such as using a Record-Triggered Flow rather than an alternative automation tool when both could plausibly achieve the same documented outcome, is generally a technical implementation judgment call that falls within the Admin's genuine area of expertise rather than the BA's, and second-guessing this kind of decision without genuine cause risks undermining trust and creating unnecessary friction, rather than serving the BA's actual core verification responsibility.

The appropriate response is genuinely listening to and accepting the Admin's technical explanation, updating one's own understanding of the situation accordingly, rather than continuing to insist the original concern was valid based on incomplete technical knowledge, since the entire purpose of raising the initial concern was to verify correctness, and a valid technical explanation that genuinely resolves the concern means that purpose has been served, not that the BA must defend their initial impression regardless of new information. This response matters significantly for the long-term working relationship between BA and technical team, since a BA who genuinely listens and updates their understanding when presented with valid technical reasoning, rather than persisting in disagreement out of a need to be right, builds the kind of mutual trust and collaborative dynamic that makes future reviews more efficient and more candid on both sides, while a BA who cannot accept a legitimate technical explanation risks being seen as a bottleneck whose concerns require excessive technical justification rather than genuine partnership.