Validity and soundness in scientific software

In today's workshop on Software Engineering for Science we spent quite a bit of time discussing the different levels of correctness of scientific software. I was surprised since I had thought some of this was pretty basic stuff. After a bit of reflection I wonder if it isn't because we don't have common terms for these ideas.

To be clear, I'm referring to verification and validation. These activities are summed up by the questions, "Are we building the right thing?" (validation) and "Are we building the thing right?" (verification). Another way of looking at this is that verification is the act of checking that software meets its specifications, whereas validation is checking that software meets its requirements.

This comes up when you talk about scientific software since in many cases the software is supposed to enact a theory or mathematical model. Validation checks that the mathematical model is accurate where as verification checks that the software implements the mathematical model accurately.

Clearly we have words for "verification" and "validation", though I don't remember these words being used much today, or at all. The fact that they aren't commonly used and that we needed to discuss the distinction between these activities is curious to me.

But more so, whilst we have the words to discuss the activities we don't seem to have adjectives to refer to the software itself. (Do we? Tell me if we do.) I suppose we could use the terms "verified software" and "validated software". "Verified" is overloaded though. I immediately want to ask "by whom?", as if the term refers to software inspected and given a stamp of approval by an outside agency. "Validated software" seems okay though.

Borrowing from formal logic, could we refer to the "soundness" and "validity" of software?