CTFL-AcT Exam Dumps : ISTQB Certified Tester - Acceptance Testing (CT-AcT)

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.”

In Gherkin syntax (Given-When-Then), the purpose is to describe system behavior in a way that’s understandable to all stakeholders. Test steps should focus on user intentions and observable results — not UI implementation details — to ensure maintainability and abstraction.

Line 3 ("click 'Buy Tickets' button") refers explicitly to a UI element, which should generally be avoided in acceptance tests. Instead, it could say "I request to buy tickets."

Line 7 ("I should provide my personal data") is describing an action the user must take, not an outcome or result. In a Gherkin “Then” step, we expect an observable system response, not further user interaction.

Option C identifies both of these review concerns correctly.

Other options:

A includes an incorrect comment about line 4 ("quantity should not be set") — setting a value is acceptable.

B is false — the test case has reviewable issues.

D might be valid in a different context (e.g., boundary tests), but that’s not a flaw in the existing scenario.

Answer: C. Line 3 refers to an element of the user interface, which is to be avoided and line 7 is an action and not a result

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.”