# 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. `<>`, `<>`) | Pass | Actor `<>`, system boundary `<>`. | | 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