Accept planning baseline and UC-001 artifacts

Add the Use Case Diagram, Domain Model (use case and project), Dictionary, Operation Contract, Sequence Diagram, review records RC-001 to RC-015 and the Traceability Matrix. Split US-001 into one story per milestone, make GitHub optional (AGPL license applied when chosen), and accept BC-001, SA-001, PP-001, UCD-001, US-001, UC-001, SSD-001, DM-001, DM-002, OC-001, SD-001, DICT-001 and MIL-001 to MIL-003 after review. Refs: no issues synced yet (sync-project.sh dry run only) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-10-05 13:41:36 +08:00
parent fa3beaf1c1
commit 02875aee5f
32 changed files with 1666 additions and 73 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# SQA Review Record: US-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-001 |
+| CrossReference | [US-001], [QC-US-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version; re-reviewed after UCD-001 and the split into three stories | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [US-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-US-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Follows INVEST criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable) | Pass | INVEST check recorded; the only exception (Independent, on US-001.02 and US-001.03) is stated and follows the milestone order. |
+| 2 | Written in "As a / I want / So that" form | Pass | All three statements follow As a / I want / So that. |
+| 3 | Clear, testable acceptance criteria are included | Pass | Three Given/When/Then criteria per story. |
+| 4 | Traceable to a use case or epic | Pass | Each story traces to UC-001 steps and one milestone. |
+| 5 | Story is sized to fit within a single iteration | Pass | Re-checked: the epic was split into three stories, one per milestone, each fitting one two-week phase. |
+| 6 | Story statement avoids technical implementation detail | Pass | Domain terms only (repository, mirror, framework); no tools or commands. |
+| 7 | Role named in the story matches an actor defined in the Use Case Diagram | Pass | The role Maintainer matches the actor in UCD-001 (re-checked after UCD-001 was created). |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass and the optional criterion 5 now passes after the split. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Create a Use Case Diagram (UCD-001) and re-check criterion 7 | S01 | Done 2026-10-05 |
+| Split US-001.01 into per-phase stories | S01 | Done 2026-10-05 |
+
+---
+
+[US-001]: ../../user-stories.md
+[QC-US-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-user-story.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# SQA Review Record: UC-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-002 |
+| CrossReference | [UC-001], [QC-UC-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version; criterion 10 re-checked after UCD-001 | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [UC-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | N-A | Format is Fully Dressed. |
+| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Fully Dressed. |
+| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | Pass | Scope, level, primary actor, stakeholders, preconditions, postconditions, main scenario and extensions are present. |
+| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Preconditions and postconditions are defined. |
+| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | Primary actor: Maintainer. |
+| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S01, S02 and S03 with their interests. |
+| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | Pass | Ten numbered steps; optional steps 5 and 7 are marked. |
+| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No include or extend relationships are used. |
+| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | Pass | Business rules table per step. |
+| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match US-001 and UCD-001 (re-checked after UCD-001 was created). |
+| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope RepoFoundry, level user-goal. |
+| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Written from the Maintainer's goal. A reference to a hooks setting option was reworded during this review; HTTPS or SSH, the submodule and the AGPL license remain because they are the Maintainer's stated requirements. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass after UCD-001 was created. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Create the Use Case Diagram (see RC-001) and re-check criterion 10 | S01 | Done 2026-10-05 |
+
+---
+
+[UC-001]: ../../uc-001/uc.md
+[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# SQA Review Record: SSD-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-003 |
+| CrossReference | [SSD-001], [QC-SSD-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [SSD-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-SSD-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Input/output messages match the corresponding Use Case's main success scenario step-for-step | Pass | Two operations cover the actor-system exchange of steps 1 to 3; steps 4 to 10 are internal to the system and the SSD says so. |
+| 2 | Actor and System are treated strictly as black boxes (system shown as `:System`) | Pass | Only the Maintainer and `:System` appear. |
+| 3 | Object creation/destruction of the System instance handled explicitly where relevant | Pass | Lifecycle Notes describe one run of the system. |
+| 4 | Return values are shown for operations that produce one, using dashed return arrows | Pass | Dashed returns for the prompt set, the checks and the summary. |
+| 5 | Alternate/exceptional flows are represented separately (or explicitly out of scope noted) | Pass | Failure flows are stated as out of scope. |
+| 6 | Message names are verb phrases consistent with the use case's system responsibilities | Pass | startProjectCreation and provideProjectDetails. |
+| 7 | Diagram references the specific Use Case (name and ID) it depicts | Pass | Names UC-001 and the main success scenario. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[SSD-001]: ../../uc-001/ssd.md
+[QC-SSD-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-ssd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# SQA Review Record: DM-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-004 |
+| CrossReference | [DM-001], [QC-DM-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [DM-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-DM-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Uses ubiquitous/business language throughout; no technical or implementation jargon (e.g. no "table", "class", "pointer") | Pass | Business terms; `API address` is the only technical word and is the data the Maintainer configures. |
+| 2 | Multiplicities on associations are correct and complete (e.g. `1..*`, `0..1`) | Pass | All 21 associations have both multiplicities, including the optional GitHub paths. |
+| 3 | No operation/method signatures shown — attributes and associations only | Pass | Attributes and associations only. |
+| 4 | Associations are named with an unambiguous reading direction | Pass | Each association has a reading direction. |
+| 5 | Generalization/specialization used correctly, reflecting true "is-a" relationships, not misused for code reuse | Pass | Only Repository specializes into Gitea Repository and GitHub Repository, justified as is-a. |
+| 6 | Every concept traces to a noun phrase found in the use cases or glossary | Pass | The concept table traces every concept to a UC-001 step or precondition. |
+| 7 | Attributes are simple domain data (no foreign-key-like references or object pointers modeled as attributes) | Pass | Attributes are simple data; links are associations. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass. Project DM checked: see RC-005. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[DM-001]: ../../uc-001/dm.md
+[QC-DM-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-domain-model.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# SQA Review Record: DM-002
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-005 |
+| CrossReference | [DM-002], [QC-DM-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [DM-002]
+- Checklist used: [QC-DM-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Uses ubiquitous/business language throughout; no technical or implementation jargon (e.g. no "table", "class", "pointer") | Pass | Same wording as DM-001. |
+| 2 | Multiplicities on associations are correct and complete (e.g. `1..*`, `0..1`) | Pass | Same associations as DM-001, all with multiplicities. |
+| 3 | No operation/method signatures shown — attributes and associations only | Pass | No operations. |
+| 4 | Associations are named with an unambiguous reading direction | Pass | Reading directions present. |
+| 5 | Generalization/specialization used correctly, reflecting true "is-a" relationships, not misused for code reuse | Pass | Same single generalization. |
+| 6 | Every concept traces to a noun phrase found in the use cases or glossary | Pass | Sources cite UC-001; no concept without a source. |
+| 7 | Attributes are simple domain data (no foreign-key-like references or object pointers modeled as attributes) | Pass | Same attributes as DM-001. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — Consolidated model created from DM-001; with one use case there is nothing to reconcile and no conflict. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[DM-002]: ../../domain-model.md
+[QC-DM-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-domain-model.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# SQA Review Record: OC-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-006 |
+| CrossReference | [OC-001], [QC-OC-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [OC-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-OC-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Method signature is complete: operation name, parameter types, and return type | Pass | Both signatures give name, parameter types and return type. |
+| 2 | Preconditions explicitly list required state before execution | Pass | Preconditions stated; the first operation has none, stated explicitly. |
+| 3 | Postconditions explicitly describe resulting state using Larman's "instance created/associated/attribute modified" style | Pass | Postconditions P1 to P4 and P1 to P13 describe instances created, associated or set. |
+| 4 | Exceptions and error conditions are documented, including the triggering precondition failure | Pass | Exceptions list the failing precondition and the outcome. |
+| 5 | Operation is explicitly traceable to a single SSD message | Pass | One contract per SSD message. |
+| 6 | Contract avoids specifying implementation/algorithmic details (declarative, not procedural) | Pass | Declarative state changes; no algorithm. |
+| 7 | Cross-references the Domain Model classes/associations affected by pre/postconditions | Pass | Uses the IT terms of DICT-001 for the concepts of DM-001. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[OC-001]: ../../uc-001/oc.md
+[QC-OC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-operation-contract.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# SQA Review Record: SD-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-007 |
+| CrossReference | [SD-001], [QC-SD-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [SD-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-SD-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Message passing strictly follows UML sync/async/return arrow syntax | Pass | Solid arrows for calls and dashed arrows for returns. |
+| 2 | GRASP/GoF patterns applied and explicitly annotated where used (e.g. Controller, Observer, Mediator, Factory) | Pass | Controller, Pure Fabrication, Creator, Facade and Protection from variations are annotated. |
+| 3 | Lifelines show activation bars matching actual processing time/call nesting | Pass | Activations follow the call nesting. |
+| 4 | Object creation and destruction shown with correct UML notation (`create`/`destroy` messages, X on lifeline) | Pass | Creation and destruction are shown for every transient object. Fixed during this review: creation and destruction of the two host clients were missing. |
+| 5 | Diagram realizes the postconditions of a specific Operation Contract | Pass | The coverage tables map every postcondition P1 to P4 and P1 to P13 to a message. |
+| 6 | Responsibility assignment favors low coupling/high cohesion (no god-object receiving all messages) | Pass | The controller only sequences; work sits in the helpers. |
+| 7 | Loop, alt, and opt combined fragments used correctly for conditional/repeated behavior | Pass | `alt` for the license choice, `opt` for the optional GitHub steps. |
+| 8 | Each exception of the realized Operation Contract is shown as an `alt` or `opt` fragment, or its absence is justified | Pass | Failure paths are not drawn and the Responsibility Check says why. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass after the fix noted at criterion 4. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[SD-001]: ../../uc-001/sd.md
+[QC-SD-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-sequence-diagram.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# SQA Review Record: DICT-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-008 |
+| CrossReference | [DICT-001], [QC-DICT-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [DICT-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-DICT-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Every row has a PO term, its language, an IT term and a definition | Pass | All 17 rows are complete. |
+| 2 | Each PO term maps to exactly one IT term and the reverse (no synonyms) | Pass | 17 PO terms map to 17 distinct IT terms. |
+| 3 | Every Domain Model concept has a row, and the Domain Model uses its PO term | Pass | All 17 concepts of DM-001 and DM-002 have a row and the models use the PO terms. |
+| 4 | The Operation Contracts, Sequence Diagrams, Design Class Diagrams and ERD use the IT term, not the PO term | Pass | OC-001 and SD-001 use the IT terms. |
+| 5 | Definitions are written in the PO language and are one sentence | Pass | One sentence each, in English. |
+| 6 | "Used as PO term in" and "Used as IT term in" name artifact types that exist in the project | Pass | Fixed during this review: DCD was removed from the IT-term column because no DCD exists. |
+| 7 | Translated artifacts (`<artifact>.<language>.md`) use the PO terms of the dictionary | N-A | The PO language is English; no translations. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework's independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[DICT-001]: ../../dictionary.md
+[QC-DICT-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-dictionary.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# SQA Review Record: UCD-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-009 |
+| CrossReference | [UCD-001], [QC-UCD-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [UCD-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-UCD-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Actors are defined with correct UML stereotypes (e.g. `<<System>>`, `<<Actor>>`) | Pass | Actor `<<Actor>>`, system boundary `<<System>>`. |
+| 2 | System boundary is clearly drawn and labeled | Pass | The boundary is drawn and labelled RepoFoundry. |
+| 3 | Include/extend relationships are used correctly per UML 2.5.1, not as generic "uses" arrows | N-A | No include or extend is used; the Relationships section says why. |
+| 4 | Every actor participates in at least one use case (no orphan actors) | Pass | The only actor, Maintainer, takes part in Create a new project. |
+| 5 | Diagram is traceable to a documented stakeholder need | Pass | The Maintainer is S01 and S02 in SA-001. |
+| 6 | Use case names are verb phrases describing actor goals, not internal system operations | Pass | Create a new project is a verb phrase and a goal. |
+| 7 | Diagram is free of implementation detail (e.g. UI widgets, database tables) | Pass | No tools, screens or tables. |
+| 8 | Actor and use case naming is consistent with corresponding Use Case and User Story documents | Pass | Names match US-001 and UC-001. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[UCD-001]: ../../use-case-diagram.md
+[QC-UCD-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case-diagram.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# SQA Review Record: BC-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-010 |
+| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version; re-checked after objective 7 was added | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Qualitative, and now explicitly justified (internal tooling, no revenue, no baseline). Fixed during this review. |
+| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Six risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
+| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Seven criteria with targets and measures; criteria 2 and 3 were reworded during this review for the optional GitHub path. |
+| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | In Scope and Out of Scope are separate subsections. Objective 7 (documentation) was added during the SA-001 review; it is covered by the README scope item and success criterion 7. |
+| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | The Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 with their interest only. Roles that had been re-described inline were removed during this review. |
+| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | The framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023 and the shell coding conventions are stated. |
+| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate lists. |
+| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation: Proceed. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass after the three fixes noted. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
+[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-business-case.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# SQA Review Record: MIL-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-011 |
+| CrossReference | [MIL-001], [QC-MIL-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [MIL-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-MIL-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | A concrete deliverable is defined for every gate | Pass | The script skeleton with safe parsing, prompts, example files and a test harness. |
+| 2 | Explicit Go/No-Go criteria are stated for each gate | Pass | Six criteria, each with an objective Go and No-Go (including all acceptance criteria of US-001.01). |
+| 3 | Dependencies on other milestones are explicitly mapped | Pass | None; it is the first phase. |
+| 4 | Each milestone is traceable to a Business Case objective or KPI | Pass | Maps to Business Case objective 6, success criteria 1 and 6, and US-001.01. |
+| 5 | Milestone owner and approving reviewer are identified | Pass | Owner S01, approving reviewer S02. |
+| 6 | Milestone has a defined target date consistent with project constraints | Pass | 2026-10-16, matches PP-001. The Business Case sets no duration, so nothing conflicts; the date is accepted together with the plan. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[MIL-001]: ../../milestones/mil-001-foundation.md
+[QC-MIL-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-milestones-gateways.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# SQA Review Record: PP-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-012 |
+| CrossReference | [PP-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [PP-001]
+- Checklist used: none: no QC checklist exists for PP; the checks below come from the PP reference (Required sections, Validating)
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Required sections are present in order | Pass | All eight required sections are present, in order. |
+| 2 | Gateway Schedule agrees with each MIL-* (window, decision date, owner) | Pass | Three rows, one per MIL-*; windows, decision dates and owners match each milestone. |
+| 3 | Timeline diagram shows each phase and Go/No-Go decision | Pass | The Gantt has one bar and one Go/No-Go marker per phase. |
+| 4 | Plan fits the Business Case constraint | Pass | The Business Case sets no duration constraint, so there is no conflict; the plan states its dates are accepted by S01. |
+| 5 | Scope Coverage maps each Business Case scope item to a gateway | Pass | Every in-scope item of BC-001 maps to a gateway. |
+| 6 | Dependencies and the effect of a No-Go are stated | Pass | The chain MIL-001, MIL-002, MIL-003 and the effect of a No-Go are stated. |
+| 7 | Owners use stakeholder IDs | Pass | Owners are S01 and S02. |
+| 8 | Stories column matches the stories each gateway delivers | Pass | US-001.01, .02 and .03 match the milestones that deliver them. |
+| 9 | Open Issues is accurate | Pass | Open Issues lists one open item (first commit), assigned to MIL-003. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All checks pass. PP has no QC checklist, so the checks come from the PP reference (required sections and Validating). Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[PP-001]: ../../project-plan.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# SQA Review Record: SA-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-013 |
+| CrossReference | [SA-001], [QC-SA-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [SA-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-SA-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries | Pass | S01, S02 and S03 all have Power, Interest and a quadrant. |
+| 2 | Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts | Pass | IDs S01 to S03, unique and used by the other artifacts. |
+| 3 | Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description | Pass | Roles and levels are explicit. The organization is recorded as Not stated: the Product Owner gave no organization and none was invented. |
+| 4 | Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones | Pass | Channel, frequency and deliverable for each stakeholder, tied to MIL-001 to MIL-003. |
+| 5 | Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies | Pass | One conflict (convenience against consent prompts) with a mitigation. The mitigation was corrected during this review to point at the UC-001 business rules instead of an undefined option. |
+| 6 | Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives | Pass | Every stakeholder traces to a Business Case objective. S03 had no objective; fixed during this review by adding objective 7 (documentation) to BC-001. |
+| 7 | Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+) | Pass | Each concern has a business statement and a FURPS+ attribute. |
+| 8 | Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry | Pass | Short tables in plain language. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass after the two fixes noted. Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[SA-001]: ../../stakeholder-analysis.md
+[QC-SA-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# SQA Review Record: MIL-002
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-014 |
+| CrossReference | [MIL-002], [QC-MIL-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [MIL-002]
+- Checklist used: [QC-MIL-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | A concrete deliverable is defined for every gate | Pass | The script creating the repositories and mirror, with a printed summary and documented token permissions. |
+| 2 | Explicit Go/No-Go criteria are stated for each gate | Pass | Seven criteria, each with an objective Go and No-Go (including all acceptance criteria of US-001.02). Criterion 1 was reworded during this review for the optional GitHub path. |
+| 3 | Dependencies on other milestones are explicitly mapped | Pass | Depends on MIL-001, with the reason. |
+| 4 | Each milestone is traceable to a Business Case objective or KPI | Pass | Maps to Business Case objectives 1 to 3, success criteria 2 to 4, and US-001.02. |
+| 5 | Milestone owner and approving reviewer are identified | Pass | Owner S02, approving reviewer S01. |
+| 6 | Milestone has a defined target date consistent with project constraints | Pass | 2026-10-30, matches PP-001; the Business Case sets no duration, so nothing conflicts. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass after the wording fixes noted (Purpose and criterion 1). Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[MIL-002]: ../../milestones/mil-002-repositories-and-mirror.md
+[QC-MIL-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-milestones-gateways.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# SQA Review Record: MIL-003
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-015 |
+| CrossReference | [MIL-003], [QC-MIL-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-05 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S02 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [MIL-003]
+- Checklist used: [QC-MIL-001]
+- Review date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | A concrete deliverable is defined for every gate | Pass | The complete script, the README and a written final review with the external prerequisites. |
+| 2 | Explicit Go/No-Go criteria are stated for each gate | Pass | Eight criteria, each with an objective Go and No-Go (including all acceptance criteria of US-001.03). Criterion 2 now names the framework URL; it said only the configured URL, which no configuration key defines. Fixed during this review. |
+| 3 | Dependencies on other milestones are explicitly mapped | Pass | Depends on MIL-002, with the reason. |
+| 4 | Each milestone is traceable to a Business Case objective or KPI | Pass | Maps to Business Case objectives 4 to 7, success criteria 1, 5, 6 and 7, and US-001.03. |
+| 5 | Milestone owner and approving reviewer are identified | Pass | Owner S01, approving reviewer S02. |
+| 6 | Milestone has a defined target date consistent with project constraints | Pass | 2026-11-13, matches PP-001; the Business Case sets no duration, so nothing conflicts. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — All mandatory criteria pass after the fix noted (criterion 2). Author and reviewer are the same person for now (S01 and S02 are both held by the Maintainer), so the framework independence rule is not met; re-review when a second person takes S02.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | - | - |
+
+---
+
+[MIL-003]: ../../milestones/mil-003-scaffold-and-release.md
+[QC-MIL-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-milestones-gateways.md