Answer.

Historically, approaches to gathering requirements were considered linear: the analyst communicated with different stakeholders, formed lists of wishes, and formalized them into specifications. In reality, the larger the project, the more challenging it becomes to identify and track overlaps, duplications, and directly opposing tasks among the requirements from different groups of stakeholders.

Problem

In large-scale systems, the following often arise:

contradictions between the requirements of different departments (for example, security vs convenience);
overlaps and duplication (different teams want the same thing from different angles);
hidden dependencies (one change leads to others).

An error at the analysis stage can lead to conflicts during implementation, increased timelines, non-functional mechanisms, or an inability to integrate modules.

Solution

A professional system analyst is forced to use techniques such as:

building dependency matrices (for example, ".requirement-traceability-matrix") and models (UML diagrams, ER diagrams);
holding working meetings and reviews between opposing groups of stakeholders;
using the "requirements conflict resolution" technique (for example, facilitation sessions);
implementing traceability tools that allow seeing the connections between requirements at each stage (for example, API requirements and security requirements for the same operations);
regular updating and prioritization of requirements.

Key features:

Matrices and diagrams are mandatory for complex projects.
Conflict resolution is the analyst's responsibility.
Hidden dependencies are derived through modeling and communication.

Trick Questions.

Is requirement prioritization a way to resolve contradictions?

No, prioritization is an arrangement of implementation order. Contradictions must be resolved before being placed in the backlog, through agreement, compromise, or revision of requirements.

Can all connections be identified only with automated tools?

No, automation (for example, traceability tools) helps, but embedded business meanings, process nuances, and hidden conflicts are documented only through discussions with real stakeholders.

Does overlapping requirements mean one of them is necessarily unnecessary?

No, requirements may overlap in wording but have different end goals. It's essential to check the meaning and look for opportunities for aggregation or clarification.

Typical Mistakes and Anti-Patterns

Hasty merging of conflicting requirements (removing one disrupts business scenarios).
Failing to document connections — during modifications, old requirements "get lost" and disrupted.
Relying solely on documentation without live communications.

Example from Life

Negative case: In a banking CRM, two departments independently requested to implement a "quick client search." The requirements were implemented separately without identifying duplication, leading to the creation of two different searches with convoluted scenarios.

Advantages:

Satisfaction of each department separately

Disadvantages:

Inconsistency of the interface
Increased support
Higher project cost

Positive case: The analyst organized workshops with key fragments of requirements, a dependency matrix, and iteratively coordinated scenarios with clients and executors.