WASHINGTON - The Department of Defense (DoD) wants to get new capabilities to warfighters faster. Open-systems architectures, commercial off-the-shelf components, and software-defined systems all offer ways to accelerate technology development and insertion. But these approaches share an important requirement: Engineers still must demonstrate that new capabilities work as intended.

A December 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified shortcomings in how DoD test and evaluation policies address modern product-development practices. GAO found that policies did not fully reflect leading practices such as involving testers early, conducting iterative testing, using digital engineering tools, and obtaining ongoing user feedback. The gaps were particularly pronounced in policies governing major capability and middle-tier acquisition programs.

The findings point to a broader challenge for military electronics. The defense industry wants systems that can evolve rapidly, but faster development alone does not ensure that new capabilities can be integrated, verified, and fielded on schedule.

Consider the Air Force's T-7A Red Hawk trainer program. GAO found that test officials lacked timely access to contractor test data, partly because cybersecurity requirements complicated transferring large data files between government and contractor networks. Government personnel resorted to hand-carrying hard drives until a contractor terminal could be installed to download historical test data. GAO also found that the acquisition strategy did not require the prime contractor to provide a complete digital system model.

That example illustrates why verification is a systems engineering responsibility, not simply a final hurdle before delivery. Testers need the data, tools, and access required to evaluate a system throughout development, not only when it is ready for formal testing.

The distinction matters because problems discovered late in development can force expensive redesigns, additional testing, and schedule delays. When engineers plan verification from the beginning, they have more opportunities to identify problems while design changes are still manageable. Test engineers can help define requirements, establish performance baselines, and determine what evidence will be needed to demonstrate that a system meets its requirements.

This approach also supports iterative development. Engineers can introduce changes, evaluate their effects, and use test results to guide the next design decision rather than waiting until a major development milestone to discover deficiencies. Digital engineering, simulation, and hardware-in-the-loop testing can help support that process, although none eliminates the need to validate models or demonstrate performance under representative conditions. Digital models can also help engineers identify interface conflicts and evaluate how changes to individual components affect broader system behavior before committing to physical integration.

Open-systems architectures make this discipline especially important. Modular designs can simplify component replacement and enable competition among suppliers, but standardized interfaces alone do not guarantee that a replacement module will work as intended within a particular system. Programs still need defined performance requirements, access to relevant technical information, and a way to verify that changes preserve system-level behavior.

That process requires engineers to distinguish between verification and validation. Verification establishes whether a system meets its specified technical requirements, while validation determines whether it fulfills its intended operational purpose. Both become important as military systems incorporate new hardware, software, and interfaces. Regression testing, for example, helps engineers determine whether replacing a processor, updating software, or integrating a new sensor has affected previously demonstrated system functions. Without that testing, an upgrade that improves one capability could introduce problems elsewhere in the system.

This is where acquisition strategy comes in. If DoD wants systems that can accept new processors, sensors, radios, and software throughout their service lives, contracts and program plans must account for the engineering work required to integrate and verify those changes. Technical data, interface documentation, test resources, and regression testing are not incidental expenses. They help determine whether a system can be upgraded affordably and on schedule.

The defense industry should continue pursuing faster development cycles and more flexible architectures. But speed matters only if the resulting capability can be shown to meet its requirements. Verification should not be treated as the price paid after innovation is complete.

It is part of what makes innovation fieldable.