[dragonwriter]

> Actually doing 'waterfall' properly would probably be fine?

It's not fine if there is a need for the particular things that agile serves, which is why contracting requirements would specify agile and contractors would, to be response, claim to be agile necessitating the people reviewing the submission to detect agile BS.

Government requires waterfallish process in contracts all the time, but a document on identifying Agile BS isn't addressing those cases.