Refactor note on preferred poison-test approach
Signed-off-by: David Horstmann <david.horstmann@arm.com>
diff --git a/docs/architecture/psa-shared-memory.md b/docs/architecture/psa-shared-memory.md
index c3894a3..9929573 100644
--- a/docs/architecture/psa-shared-memory.md
+++ b/docs/architecture/psa-shared-memory.md
@@ -501,10 +501,12 @@
* When `should_poison == 1`, this is equivalent to calling `VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_NOACCESS(buffer, length)` or `ASAN_POISON_MEMORY_REGION(buffer, length)`.
* When `should_poison == 0`, this is equivalent to calling `VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED(buffer, length)` or `ASAN_UNPOISON_MEMORY_REGION(buffer, length)`.
-We may choose one of two approaches. As discussed in [the design exploration](#validation-with-existing-tests), the first is preferred:
+We may choose one of two approaches:
* Use transparent allocation-based memory poisoning.
* Use memory poisoning functions and a new testsuite.
+As discussed in [the design exploration](#validation-with-existing-tests), the transparent approach is preferred.
+
We will specify the particularities of each approach's implementation below.
#### Transparent allocation-based memory poisoning