I recently reviewed a new defect that described the current behavior of a product. It continues with a description of desired behavior based on learning (not on an existing requirement) about the current behavior. It seemed to suggest that since the desired behavior does not occur, there is a defect.
In my opinion, someone reviewed the current behavior, thought about it, and decided a new behavior is desired.
This would appear to be a classic application of an agile approach to building products. However, I would not prefer to see requirements defined in defect descriptions and would recommend using a story card instead. The story card, in our work environment, has more scrutiny on the definition, a broader audience for awareness and approval, and is usually the central place for researching product requirements.
What are your thoughts on using defect to define requirements?