Me again.

I am looking into what I call a 'false positive', where a business manager/user reviews requirements, and approves them when they should not be approved yet. Two aspects of this are of interest:

1)the known difficulties in communicating requirements to various audiences, such that they truly understand them.

2)the documented requirements, and apparent knowldege of the Business Analyst on the subject of the project, are extensive enough and impressive-looking enough that users take them on without question. "It looks good, must be right!". The personality and projected confidence of the Business Analyst can contribute to this situation as well.

--> Current research on communicating requirements favors models over prose, and use of prototyping to help in analysis. Does anyone have other techniques used during requirements review that can help avoid getting a 'false positivre'?