A process can specify an approval action without naming its responsible role
A review workflow without a decision owner can accumulate issues indefinitely. Assigning the nearest named person automatically may appear to solve the problem but can create responsibility that no one accepted. The project should distinguish the person who notices a dispute, the person who investigates it, and the role that can resolve it. A small role-and-state table can reveal whether each stage has an accountable next step. The evaluation should include an ordinary disagreement and one involving the usual reviewer's own proposal, because escalation or conflict handling may matter. If the organization has no established process for the latter, the candidate should show that uncertainty rather than invent a hierarchy. Once an owner is agreed, the requirement can describe the decision path without embedding a temporary employee name into the permanent business rule.
Working through the example
A document says disputed requirements receive review, yet neither the project plan nor the role matrix identifies who resolves them. Create a completeness question linked to the review stage and the role inventory. Ask for a responsible role and an escalation condition before assigning tasks.
A discriminating check
Present a disputed requirement and see whether the documented process identifies a decision owner. The owner may be a role rather than a named person, and staffing changes should not rewrite the requirement's meaning. The completeness study motivates questions against a scoped domain model. Its modeled omissions do not establish that every flagged gap deserves a new requirement in this project.