In my experience, raw feedback from users practically never contains real requirements. I don't remember a single user who could "speak requirements". Well, unless he/she is directly answering certain questions very precisely crafted by a business analyst (in which case I would not call those answers "raw user feedback" ;) ). Typically, requirements have to be "extracted" from user feedback. Therefore I believe that, semantically, raw user feedback is nothing more than source material for requirements, but not a part of requirements. It is incredibly important, but only supplementary information, if you wish. As for logical/physical documentation organization... I think the proper place for user feedback should depend more on technical issues than on semantic ones. If it is really necessary to have one big linear document (like a book) containing not only requirements themselves but all supplementary information, then I do not see any problem with turning user feedback into one of the appendices; after all, appendices would be exactly where all supplementary info should go in such case. However, I think that nobody really needs a single fat "requirements book", and any supplementary info (including user feedback) is perfect candidate for separate documents (or even a database) hyperlinked or otherwise referenced by the document(s) containing actual requirements. BTW, IMHO it is much more important to provide some minimal structure in the document(s) containing raw user feedback. At least, it should be as easy as possible to make references to various fragments in that document. Such references might be very useful when providing justifications or other comments for actual requirements, as well as when discussing requiremens' severities and priorities. Just my 2 cents...