Which statement about natural language documentation of requirements is accurate?

The assertion that natural language requirements cannot be misunderstood is inaccurate because natural language is often subject to interpretation and can lead to misunderstandings. The inherent ambiguity and variability in everyday language may result in different interpretations by different stakeholders, which is a significant challenge in requirements documentation.

The statement that natural language requirements are mainly suitable for the behavioral perspective is accurate as natural language is commonly used to describe how a system should behave in response to certain inputs or actions. This aligns with the need for clear and understandable communication of functional requirements to various stakeholders, making it an effective choice for behavioral descriptions.

While there are templates that can assist in structuring requirements, using natural language does not necessarily mandate a templated approach. Natural language can be flexible and does not have to conform to strict formats, allowing for creative expression that may be more understandable to non-technical stakeholders.

Finally, regarding quality requirements, natural language is indeed often critiqued for being less effective at conveying non-functional attributes such as reliability, performance, or security clearly and unambiguously. These attributes often require more precise definitions which might be better captured through structured formats or modeling techniques. Hence, natural language might fall short in representing the intricacies of quality requirements accurately.

In summary, the most accurate statement recognizes that