The requirements doc is a snapshot of yesterday's intent pretending to be today's. Every project that suffered friction you can't quite explain — political, interpersonal, process — is usually a representation failure. The value flows moved. The system couldn't read the move. Everyone involved started solving a problem that no longer existed exactly as written.
Static requirements are fine for static problems. Most of the problems worth doing aren't static. The stakeholders' preferred state shifts as they learn. The environmental conditions shift as reality responds. The coalition's composition shifts as people enter and exit. A system that can't encode the changing state can't represent the work.
What this lets stakeholders do: keep the representation alive with the work. Let agents read the current preferred state rather than a frozen artifact. Make revision cheap enough that keeping intent current doesn't feel like process overhead.
What's still open: what's the cadence and discipline for keeping declared intent honest without devolving into constant re-scoping?