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>

docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-uc-001.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