# Spec Driven Development — Chapter 07 Memory: 2c - The Scope of a Spec: How Much Fits in One Specification
- **Stage**: Previewed — awaiting reading
- **Next Step**: Wait for the reader to finish PDF pages 57–63; then ask 2–3 open-ended recall questions before synthesis.
- **Reading Span**: PDF pages 57–63
- **Source Text**: /library/Spec Driven Development/Chapter-07-The-Scope-of-a-Spec-How-Much-Fits-in-One-Specification/Chapter-07-source-text.md (read instead of PDF when needed)
- **Full Record**: /library/Spec Driven Development/Chapter-07-The-Scope-of-a-Spec-How-Much-Fits-in-One-Specification/Chapter-07-chapter-notes.md (read only if needed)
- **Last Updated**: 2026-10-01

## Carried-in Context (from earlier chapters)
- Ch1: Ködel's experience motivates the method but does not prove broad effectiveness; reader wants to test it.
- Ch2: A specification sets a target for judging AI output; people still judge, decide, and answer. The 70/30 split is illustrative.
- Ch3: SDD = what/why, *FOCUS Architecture* = where rules live, *Context Engineering* = what the agent sees and at what cost. Reader expects cross-references to explain needed ideas in place.
- Ch4: The author combines specification direction with short feedback cycles and claims AI lowers code rewrite cost; no project-level measurement of total change cost. Reader said revised code must be tested against the spec.
- Ch5: A useful spec records purpose, scope, behavior, criteria, and edges; technical choices belong in the plan. Reader learned that non-space versus non-whitespace changes behavior.
- Ch6: Sentence precision matters: EARS gives condition and obligation; Given/When/Then gives a concrete check; Design by Contract gives pre/post/invariants; ATDD sets checks before code. The edit-task defect came from counting the task's own unchanged title as a duplicate. Reader was unsure about this even after feedback, so a concrete example was repeated before this preview.
- Open cross-book thread: maintenance and information structure in *FOCUS Architecture* and *Context Engineering*; the stand-alone cross-reference promise remains under observation.

## This Chapter
- **Core Question**: How much work should one specification cover so it can be reviewed and its result checked as a useful piece of software?
- **Watch-For Themes**: Unit of a spec; reviewability; complete/reopen versus create/delete; splitting by usable behavior versus layers; cases where SDD overhead may not pay off.
- **Core Thesis**: Pending post-reading review.
- **Key Concepts**: Pending post-reading review.
- **Notable Arguments / Evidence Limits**: Pending post-reading review.
- **Action Item**: Pending post-reading review.

## Reader State
- **Pending Questions**: None; reading pending.
- **Reader's Answers (paraphrase)**: None for this chapter.
- **Misconceptions / Feedback Given**: None for this chapter.
- **Personal Threads**: Reader may try a small task-text spec; no Chapter 7 application selected.

## Open Threads
- Which boundary would make a real feature reviewable while leaving a usable result?
- What evidence would show SDD overhead pays off or does not in the reader's work?
- Revisit edit-task self-comparison only if it helps the reader understand a later example.