Which statement reflects the requirements that are not delivered under the MoSCoW technique?

The MoSCoW technique is a prioritization tool used to decide which requirements or features will be delivered in a project or a product. It categorizes requirements into four distinct groups: Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have this time.

When considering the requirements that are not delivered, the classification of 'Won't have' is specifically used to identify those items that will not be included in the current scope of work. This designation indicates that, while these requirements may be valuable or important, they are either deferred to a future phase or removed from consideration altogether for the present project cycle.

Recognizing 'Won't have' requirements helps stakeholders understand what will not be prioritized or completed, allowing for clearer communication about project scope and timelines. It sets explicit expectations about what to anticipate in this release or iteration, which can help prevent misunderstandings and manage stakeholder expectations effectively.

In contrast, the other classifications—Musts, Shoulds, and Coulds—represent requirements that are included in some capacity in the scope of the project, reflecting various levels of priority. Therefore, the statement that reflects the requirements that are not delivered effectively aligns with the 'Won't have' category in the MoSCoW framework.