# Wrestling Software Requirements Checklist

Editable working resource. Source review: 2026-10-20.
Article: https://smartwrestlertracker.com/articles/wrestling-software-requirements-checklist

## How can a requirement become a testable evaluation row?

Write an observable task, the condition in which it must work and the evidence needed for acceptance. Avoid a score for a capability that was only mentioned in a sales conversation. A provider can identify a limitation honestly; the buyer then decides whether it is acceptable for this event or a reason to reject the proposed arrangement.

| Planning field | Prompt or example to adapt | Your entry |
| --- | --- | --- |
| User and task | Name the real role and action, such as an authorized registration worker reviewing a correction. | __________ |
| Required condition | Describe the relevant format, device, timing or access restriction under which the action must work. | __________ |
| Acceptance evidence | Specify the resulting record or visible outcome that reviewers will check in the demonstration. | __________ |
| Support status | Mark demonstrated, documented with limits, not supported or unverified; keep roadmap claims separate. | __________ |
| Decision | Record must-have or preference, unresolved question, reviewer and the reason for acceptance or rejection. | __________ |

## Editable software evaluation scorecard

| Required task | Demonstration to request | Evidence and status |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Register the correct athlete | Complete an approved family registration scenario | Supported, limited or unverified |
| Handle an authorized correction | Show the actual entry and payment consequences | Observed workflow and limits |
| Run mat operations | Rehearse the intended roles and devices | Result and unresolved issue |
| Recover after interruption | Use the documented recovery procedure | Verified capability, not assumption |
| Export or retain records | Demonstrate the exact authorized output | Format, scope and access |

## Original fictional planning example

A fictional school event team lists reliable mat operation, limited worker access and a documented interruption response as essential requirements. During an evaluation, a provider demonstrates ordinary scoring successfully but cannot establish the particular recovery behavior the team expected. The reviewer records that requirement as unverified rather than scoring it as supported because the general feature list says “reliable.” The team asks for current documentation and a repeatable approved scenario, using fictional data rather than real participant records.

The operational lead also checks whether a proposed workaround is acceptable. If it requires sharing a powerful account or bypassing application rules, it is not treated as equivalent support. The team distinguishes a product limitation, a training problem and an event assumption that may need revision. A roadmap promise remains separate from functionality available for the intended event. Costs are compared against the workflow actually demonstrated, including any separate required service or implementation responsibility.

The final decision includes accepted limits and named contingencies. A critical unresolved task is not averaged away by high scores for optional features. Before event day, the selected process is rehearsed with actual leads and representative devices. This case shows how a checklist becomes useful evidence rather than a marketing comparison grid. Each requirement has a task, an owner and an observable result. The buyer can explain both the choice and the work still needed, while avoiding unsupported claims that every platform must have the same feature or that a successful sales demonstration guarantees readiness under the event’s actual operating conditions.

## Supporting references

- Smart Wrestler: Smart Wrestler features: https://smartwrestlertracker.com/features
- Smart Wrestler: Tournament software comparison: https://smartwrestlertracker.com/guides/best-wrestling-tournament-software