Writing that a system should have a drop-down list of approved vendors solves the problem in an expensive and inefficient manner. It is feasible that your solution is the best answer, but odds are, someone else hasn’t looked into the problem and settled for writing that solution.
Our writers all have experience in business analysis and product development. They participate in interviews with your stakeholders. They will identify disputes when two of them describe different systems using the same terminology. They will flag those early on for you.
The essence of a requirements document revolves around the articulation of important business requirements. Sometimes, difficult stakeholder demands and nuanced trade-offs become the defining characteristics of complexity in a requirements document. Most of the time, these documents require the writer to separate the business requirements from how the stakeholder perceives the requirements and the nuanced trade-offs that come with them. The writer must then consolidate requirements connected to the same business process and give each one a name to aid consequent discussion around the requirements for the purpose of defining, justifying, and explaining how each requirement will be tested.
Generated Requirements are grammatically correct but are untestable. The system must be scalable, intuitive and secure. Since nobody can write a test for any of them, they survive review, reach the build, and become your reasoning for acceptance.
We like to interview stakeholders separately. In the same room, the loudest description becomes a requirement. The writer then drafts, circulates the conflicting items, and holds a session on those alone. Everything that is agreed will be given an identifier and a prioritization. The draft document will then be placed together.
Each requirement shall be read twice with a different question. First, is a tester able to write a pass or fail check based on this sentence? Second, is this requirement a need or a design? Any statements that fail either of these questions shall be returned to the stakeholder that provided them, instead of being reworded to give more clarity and reduction in meaning.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical requirements document | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short | 500 | $50 | $0.50 | $50.50 |
| Standard | 1,000 | $100 | $1 | $101 |
| In-depth | 2,000 | $200 | $2 | $202 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Yes. Send two or three pieces you like the sound of, or your style guide. Matching an established voice is ordinary work for a writer and close to impossible for a model that has never read your back catalogue.
Yes. Tell us the volume and cadence and we keep the same writer on the account so the voice stays consistent. The rate does not change with volume.
Yes, by call, and each time the writer sends questions in advance to prompt preparedness from participants. If your organization prefers to host these calls internally, you are welcome to provide the call notes or transcripts to the writer, and they will answer questions from the prepared materials and flag any areas requiring follow-up for later.
Typically the cheaper option. The writer identifies every untestable statement/embedded solution and their said lists and rewrites ‘confirmed’ by you. Most clients report the document was a third shorter than it needed to be.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
It is ninety pages, and it is accurate throughout. Each of the safety warnings is written as compliance would want it. The glossary contains only thirteen terms, and I’d expected around thirty. I asked, and they said the brief didn’t specify a count, which I understand.
For six releases, our change log buried a breaking change in the release note, behind six other features. The writer has chosen to put breaking changes at the top of the release not with features. That makes obvious sense. It should have been done long ago. And we’re down to the last one!
I asked the guide to be assembled in a way that a frustrated customer would think. It was harder than I expected, but it came back perfectly with the answer that half of the customers try - rebooting - placed at the begining.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees