| 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. |
