Which statement describes a meaningful acceptance criterion?

• A. A vague statement like 'works well' that can't be tested.
• B. A feature list with no testability.
• C. A condition that must be true for the feature to be ready for release, quantifiable and testable.
• D. A time-based deadline that doesn't specify behavior.

Answer: (C)

Acceptance criteria should be specific, measurable, and testable conditions that determine when a feature is ready for release. They translate what the user expects into verifiable outcomes so the team can confirm, with evidence, that the feature behaves as intended and meets quality standards.

That statement matches the goal: a condition that must be true for release readiness, and it is quantifiable and testable. It turns vague ideas into concrete tests, enabling either automated checks or manual verification to prove the feature meets its requirements.

For example, an acceptance criterion might specify a performance target, such as the feature returning results within a certain time for a defined load, or that it handles a particular input correctly in all supported scenarios. This makes completion objective rather than subjective.

The other options miss this precision. A vague claim like “works well” cannot be tested or verified. A list of features without any testability provides no way to confirm when it’s done. A time-based deadline without specifying behavior leaves you with a delivery date but no guarantee that the feature behaves correctly or meets user needs.