iSQI CTFL-AcT Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The goal here is to achieve full decision coverage (also known as branch coverage), which means each decision point in the process must evaluate to both TRUE and FALSE at least once during testing.

From the BPMN ATM withdrawal model, we identify two key decisions:

Is the balance ≥ $100?

If yes, is receipt = YES?

To achieve full decision coverage:

One test must evaluate decision 1 as TRUE and another as FALSE.

If decision 1 is TRUE, then decision 2 must be exercised both ways (receipt = YES and NO), but for minimal decision coverage, one path through decision 2 is enough.

Analyzing test cases:

Test 1 (balance = $100, receipt = YES): decision 1 = TRUE, decision 2 = TRUE

Test 2 (balance = $99): decision 1 = FALSE

These two tests ensure:

Decision 1 evaluated TRUE (Test 1) and FALSE (Test 2)

Decision 2 evaluated at least once (receipt = YES in Test 1)

Thus, Test 1 and Test 2 form the minimal set for full decision coverage.

Other options:

C and D are redundant for the minimal set.

A includes an extra test not needed for minimal decision coverage.

Answer: B. Test 1, Test 2

Poorly defined requirements are a leading cause of defects and project failure. According to the ISTQB CTFL Acceptance Testing Syllabus and IQBBA FL Syllabus, the quality of requirements plays a critical role in successful solution development and acceptance testing. Requirements must be clear, unambiguous, complete, and testable. When they are vague or ambiguous, stakeholders may interpret them differently, which can lead to incorrect implementations, inadequate testing, and ultimately rework or rejection during acceptance.

Option A is explicitly supported by the ISTQB Foundation Syllabus and IQBBA principles. In contrast:

Option B is incorrect because Agile lifecycles still place great emphasis on requirement engineering, even though requirements evolve iteratively.

Option C misrepresents INVEST: it is a guideline for writing good user stories but does not replace reviews or validation techniques.

Option D is risky and not endorsed by ISTQB. While testers may identify ambiguities, the correct approach is to clarify them with all relevant stakeholders, not make assumptions.

Exact Reference – ISTQB CTFL Acceptance Testing Syllabus (Section 1.3.1):

“Ambiguous, incomplete, or inconsistent requirements increase the risk of misunderstanding between stakeholders, leading to incorrect implementation and ineffective tests.”

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