iSQI CTFL-AcT Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation (Approx. 200 words):

Acceptance criteria should focus on business-relevant outcomes that are specific, testable, and observable. In this user story, the goal is to validate that the registration functionality is available and behaves as expected.

Let's analyze each proposition:

i) “A registration form is displayed on the screen.”

→ Valid. It is observable, specific, and directly aligned with the user story.

ii) “The form is written in the Groovy language; the cursor is initially set on the ‘login’ field...”

→ Invalid as acceptance criteria. It contains implementation details (e.g., “Groovy language”) irrelevant to business stakeholders. Also, low-level UI behavior like cursor position is overly technical and not a business-driven criterion.

iii) “I cannot register myself if the login I choose is used by another player.”

→ Valid. It defines system behavior based on a business rule (unique login) and is testable.

iv) “After successful registration process I am informed about it by an e-mail.”

→ Valid. It describes a user-visible outcome after registration, which is observable and testable.

Correct answer: D. only i), iii), and iv) are well-written acceptance criteria.

Exact Reference – ISTQB CTFL Acceptance Testing Syllabus (Section 1.3.2):

“Acceptance criteria must describe the externally visible and verifiable system behavior, excluding implementation details.”

Clear, complete, and testable requirements or user stories are critical for effective acceptance testing. Ambiguities or vague statements lead to differing interpretations by stakeholders, developers, and testers. This often results in software that doesn’t meet user expectations or in tests that fail to verify business needs correctly.

Option B is correct because it highlights the importance of precise requirements in both implementation and testing phases. Ambiguities can result in incorrect behavior, untestable features, or test cases that don’t align with business goals.

Other options:

A is risky — while testers may explore assumptions during exploratory testing, relying on assumptions rather than clarification increases risk.

C is incorrect — the INVEST mnemonic helps write better user stories, but it doesn’t replace review or validation processes.

D is false — Agile still values requirements engineering; it’s more collaborative and incremental, with the product owner playing a key role, not diminishing its importance.

Answer: B. Vague or ambiguous requirements may lead to misunderstandings both during implementation and testing

This user story is about a logged-in user measuring their blood sugar using a connected glucose meter and seeing the result quickly. The acceptance criterion specifies that the result should be displayed in less than four seconds.

Option B is correct because:

It starts with a valid GIVEN precondition (“I am logged in”).

The WHEN step matches the functionality described in the user story (blood sugar measurement using a connected device).

The THEN step explicitly includes the performance expectation (“less than 4 seconds”), aligning directly with the acceptance criterion.

Other options:

A is incorrect — while it mentions the correct functionality, “I am diabetic” is not a necessary system precondition.

C refers to blood pressure instead of blood sugar — mismatched with the user story.

D introduces additional functionality (alerts for hypo-/hyperglycemia), which is not part of the specified acceptance criteria.

Answer: B. GIVEN I am logged in on the system … THEN I can see the result … in less than 4 second