Verification, definition

The verification plan needs to cover some or all of the following details as appropriate A definition of the product design standard which is being verified. 

Definition of the stages in the development phase at which verification can most economically be carried out. 

Definition of the verification activities that are to be performed to qualify or validate the design and those which need to be performed on every product in production as a means of ensuring that the qualified design standard has been maintained. 

Definition of the test equipment, support equipment, and facilities needed to carry out the verification activities. 

Definition of the time-scales for the verification activities in the sequence in which the activities are to be carried out. 

If a quality record was intended to be any document generated or used by the quality system, the definition would surely have indicated this. If we decompose the definition further, requirements for quality are defined in ISO 8402 as the expression of the needs or their translation into a set of quantitatively stated requirements for the characteristics of an entity to enable its realization and examination. Clearly, such a requirement would be a contract, product specification, design requirement, etc. This implies that any product verification records are quality records, but it rules out any recorded information as being a quality record. 

Definition and verification of the process parameters when making the transition from laboratory measurements to a laboratory extraction system and ultimately to a pilot extraction plant, are reported in [471 - 473] and will be discussed below as an example of the process development. 

More specifically, the basic notions of a Turing Machine, of computable functions and of undecidable properties are needed for Chapter VI (Decision Problems) the definitions of recursive, primitive recursive and partial recursive functions are helpful for Section F of Chapter IV and two of the proofs in Chapter VI. The basic facts regarding regular sets, context-free languages and pushdown store automata are helpful in Chapter VIII (Monadic Recursion Schemes) and in the proof of Theorem 3.14. For Chapter V (Correctness and Program Verification) it is useful to know the basic notation and ideas of the first order predicate calculus a highly abbreviated version of this material appears as Appendix A. 

Appendix A contains a brief summary of sane relevant ideas of satisfiability and validity of well-formed formulas in the predicate calculus. Using these ideas it gives a definition of partial and total correctness of a scheme with respect to a well-formed formula as output criterion. The treatment is cursory and nonrigorous. Readers who have not seen these ideas before should examine this appendix before we return to the treatment of correctness and program verification in Chapter V, and finally conclude this treatment in Chapjter VII. 

Observe that if a is not a consistent path, then the hypothesis in formula V(P,o,A,B) is always false, i.e., inconsistent, and so V(P,0,A,B) is always true. Hence in this case, V(P,a,A,B) trivially satisfies the definition of a verification condition. 

We wish to see that for any choice of X = a and Y = b each path verification condition in W(P,A,B,I) holds. That is, we must examine each V(P,a,At r,I)(a,b) where o is a consistent path from tagged point t to tagged point r not passing through any other tagged point en route from t to r. If the hypothesis of the conditional expression V(P,a,A, A r,I)(a,b) is false, then the verification condition is vacuously true. If it is true, then A (a,b) is true and by definition of Aj, A(a) is true and computation (P,I,a) at some point enters tagged point t with Y = b. Further a is the continuation of this computation and reaches r with Y = b. So there is certainly a time when computation (P,I,a) reaches r with this specification of Y. Now if r is not a STOP statement, inductive assertion was assigned by our definition and thus Ar(a,b ) holds by definition. 

None of these restrictions affect computing power. This can readily be shown using new temporary variables. Restriction 3) helped us in the definition of computation. All the restrictions will be useful when we adapt the verification method to handle recursion restriction 2) is vital in this respect as without it the method in the last section of this chapter is invalid. 

One consequence of this definition which will be important in applications to program verification is that VxCo a. .. a a ) is logically equivalent to (Vx a. .. a Vx a ) in the sense that for any interpretation I, ... 

We start with a definition of the problem and based on this, we identify the candidates (such as, molecules, mixtures and formulations) through expert knowledge, database search, model-based search, or a combination of all. The next step is to perform experiments and/or model-based simulations (of product behavior) to identify a feasible set of candidates. At this stage, issues related to process design are introduced and a process-product match is obtained. The final test is related to product quality and performance verification. Other features, such as life cycle assessment could also be introduced at this stage. 

Based on the verification process already defined, upon receipt of purchased material the laboratory inspects and verifies that the received materials conform to the purchase requirements. When the verification is made at the supplier s premises there is a need to make arrangements for such verification and for a definition of the method for the release of products. 

Meteorological information which has been useful to receptor model studies includes temperature, relative humidity, mixing height, windspeed and wind direction. The wind direction is particularly important for the verification of certain receptor model source contribution predictions definite differences should exist between samples on which the source is upwind and downwind of the receptor. 

The Canadian Acceptable Methods document [14] gives more or less a combination of the two definitions described above and considers 3 levels in the testing of the ruggedness of a method, with the third level being performed only rarely. Level one requires verification of the basic insensitivity of the method to minor changes in environmental and operational conditions and should include verification of reproducibility by a second analyst . The first part of this definition resembles the French Guide s definition. The second part is a check on the adequacy of the method description and should be done without input from the original analyst. 

Level two requires a verification of the effect of more severe changes in conditions, such as the use of chromatographic columns from different manufacturers or the substitution of different equipment, and should be performed in a different laboratory . This second level can be considered as being equivalent to the US Pharmacopeia (USP) definition. 

After definition of the water type required, the water pipeline must be validated in order to ensure an adequate flow and purity (chemical and microbiological) of water. After the validation process, periodic verification of the pipeline and water collection points is required. This verification must be based on well-defined SOPs. 

In summary, then, Young s equation is still controversial despite the fact that it has been in existence since the beginning of the 19th century. The reader will appreciate that any relationship that has been around so long and has eluded definitive empirical verification has been the center of much research. Accordingly, the relationship is very widely encountered in the literature of surface chemistry. 

---