requirements should "strictly" follow a pattern

[gernotstarke]

Every pattern should have an identical structure, a slightly enhanced version of the (SEI) quality scenario template:

• Background/Context: Explains the situation from a broader perspective, to allow understanding of the requirement. Consider the context-perspectives from [Pohl-24]
• (Stimulus) Source: The entity (human, system, etc.) that generates the stimulus.
• Stimulus: The condition or event that needs to be considered.
• Environment: The conditions under which the stimulus occurs.
• Artifact: The part of the system that is stimulated, like the whole system or a specific component.
• Response: The activity or behavior expected from the system in response to the stimulus.
• Metric (aka Response Measure): A metric to evaluate if the expected response was achieved.

[gernotstarke]

No, make it simpler:

Context/Background: A brief description of the situation. This includes the type of system, the relevant environment or operational setting, and the specific condition being considered.

Source: The origin of the event or stimulus that triggers the scenario. This could be a stakeholder action (e.g., user interaction, administrator action) or an external event (e.g., system load, security threat, API call).

Metric/Acceptance Criteria: A clear, measurable outcome that determines whether the system meets the desired quality attribute. This could be expressed as a specific performance metric, threshold, or success criterion that must be achieved under the given context.