Initial public release of the QC checklists (1.0.0), CC BY-SA 4.0

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-10-01 20:38:48 +08:00
commit b74bdffd83
23 changed files with 1616 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,428 @@
 Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
 =======================================================================
 Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and
 does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of
 Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or
 other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related
 information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no
 warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their
 terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons
 disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the
 fullest extent possible.
 Using Creative Commons Public Licenses
 Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and
 conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share
 original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright
 and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The
 following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not
 exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.
     Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are
     intended for use by those authorized to give the public
     permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by
     copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are
     irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms
     and conditions of the license they choose before applying it.
     Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before
     applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the
     material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any
     material not subject to the license. This includes other CC-
     licensed material, or material used under an exception or
     limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors:
    wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors
     Considerations for the public: By using one of our public
     licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the
     licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If
     the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for
     example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to
     copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our
     licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain
     other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of
     the licensed material may still be restricted for other
     reasons, including because others have copyright or other
     rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests,
     such as asking that all changes be marked or described.
     Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to
     respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations
     for the public:
    wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees
 =======================================================================
 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public
 License
 By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree
 to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons
 Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License ("Public
 License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a
 contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your
 acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You
 such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from
 making the Licensed Material available under these terms and
 conditions.
 Section 1 -- Definitions.
  a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar
     Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material
     and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered,
     arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring
     permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the
     Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed
     Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording,
     Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is
     synched in timed relation with a moving image.
  b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright
     and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in
     accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.
  c. BY-SA Compatible License means a license listed at
     creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses, approved by Creative
     Commons as essentially the equivalent of this Public License.
  d. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights
     closely related to copyright including, without limitation,
     performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database
     Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or
     categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights
     specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar
     Rights.
  e. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the
     absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws
     fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright
     Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international
     agreements.
  f. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or
     any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights
     that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.
  g. License Elements means the license attributes listed in the name
     of a Creative Commons Public License. The License Elements of this
     Public License are Attribution and ShareAlike.
  h. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database,
     or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public
     License.
  i. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the
     terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to
     all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the
     Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.
  j. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights
     under this Public License.
  k. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or
     process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such
     as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution,
     dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material
     available to the public including in ways that members of the
     public may access the material from a place and at a time
     individually chosen by them.
  l. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright
     resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of
     the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases,
     as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially
     equivalent rights anywhere in the world.
  m. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights
     under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.
 Section 2 -- Scope.
  a. License grant.
       1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License,
          the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free,
          non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to
          exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
            a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or
               in part; and
            b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.
       2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where
          Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public
          License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with
          its terms and conditions.
       3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section
          6(a).
       4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The
          Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in
          all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created,
          and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The
          Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or
          authority to forbid You from making technical modifications
          necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including
          technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective
          Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License,
          simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)
          (4) never produces Adapted Material.
       5. Downstream recipients.
            a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every
               recipient of the Licensed Material automatically
               receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the
               Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this
               Public License.
            b. Additional offer from the Licensor -- Adapted Material.
               Every recipient of Adapted Material from You
               automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to
               exercise the Licensed Rights in the Adapted Material
               under the conditions of the Adapter's License You apply.
            c. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose
               any additional or different terms or conditions on, or
               apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the
               Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
               Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed
               Material.
       6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or
          may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You
          are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected
          with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by,
          the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as
          provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).
  b. Other rights.
       1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not
          licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity,
          privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to
          the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to
          assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited
          extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed
          Rights, but not otherwise.
       2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this
          Public License.
       3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to
          collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed
          Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society
          under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory
          licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly
          reserves any right to collect such royalties.
 Section 3 -- License Conditions.
 Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the
 following conditions.
  a. Attribution.
       1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
          form), You must:
            a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
               with the Licensed Material:
                 i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed
                    Material and any others designated to receive
                    attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by
                    the Licensor (including by pseudonym if
                    designated);
                ii. a copyright notice;
               iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;
                iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of
                    warranties;
                 v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the
                    extent reasonably practicable;
            b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and
               retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
            c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this
               Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or
               hyperlink to, this Public License.
       2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any
          reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in
          which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be
          reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or
          hyperlink to a resource that includes the required
          information.
       3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
          information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent
          reasonably practicable.
  b. ShareAlike.
     In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Share
     Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply.
       1. The Adapter's License You apply must be a Creative Commons
          license with the same License Elements, this version or
          later, or a BY-SA Compatible License.
       2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the
          Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition
          in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and
          context in which You Share Adapted Material.
       3. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms
          or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological
          Measures to, Adapted Material that restrict exercise of the
          rights granted under the Adapter's License You apply.
 Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights.
 Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that
 apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:
  a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right
     to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial
     portion of the contents of the database;
  b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database
     contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database
     Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database
     Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material,
     including for purposes of Section 3(b); and
  c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share
     all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.
 For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not
 replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed
 Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.
 Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.
  a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE
     EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS
     AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF
     ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS,
     IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
     WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
     PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS,
     ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT
     KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT
     ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
  b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE
     TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
     NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT,
     INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES,
     COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR
     USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN
     ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR
     DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR
     IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
  c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided
     above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent
     possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and
     waiver of all liability.
 Section 6 -- Term and Termination.
  a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and
     Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with
     this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License
     terminate automatically.
  b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under
     Section 6(a), it reinstates:
       1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided
          it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the
          violation; or
       2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.
     For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any
     right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations
     of this Public License.
  c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the
     Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop
     distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so
     will not terminate this Public License.
  d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public
     License.
 Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions.
  a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different
     terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
  b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the
     Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and
     independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.
 Section 8 -- Interpretation.
  a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and
     shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose
     conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully
     be made without permission under this Public License.
  b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is
     deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the
     minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision
     cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License
     without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and
     conditions.
  c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no
     failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the
     Licensor.
  d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted
     as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities
     that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal
     processes of any jurisdiction or authority.
 =======================================================================
 Creative Commons is not a party to its public
 licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of
 its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances
 will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons
 public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public
 Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that
 material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as
 otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at
 creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the
 use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo
 of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including,
 without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications
 to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements,
 understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For
 the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the
 public licenses.
 Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
 # SQA-QC-Checklists
 Quality-criteria (QC) checklists used by TirSystem to review project
 documents and source code. Each checklist is one Markdown file, `qc-<type>.md`,
 with an ID such as `QC-BC-001`. Every criterion is tagged with an
 ISO/IEC 25010:2023 quality characteristic.
 ## Contents
 - Business and analysis: Business Case, Stakeholder Analysis, KPI, Business
  Model Canvas, BPMN, Governance, Milestones and gateways
 - Requirements and design: Use Case Diagram, Use Case, User Story, Domain Model,
  SSD, Operation Contract, Sequence Diagram, DCD, ERD, ADR
 - Source code: Python, C, C++, C#
 ## Use
 Review a document against the checklist for its type: tick each criterion,
 record the outcome in a review record, and fix or justify every failed
 criterion. Checklists link to each other through their `CrossReference` row,
 for example a Use Case checklist points back to the Stakeholder Analysis one.
 The programming checklists assume your team has written down its own coding
 conventions for the language; they check that code follows them.
 ## Used as a submodule
 ```bash
 git submodule add https://github.com/TirSystem/SQA-QC-Checklists.git qc
 ```
 ## License
 [CC BY-SA 4.0](LICENSE). You may share and adapt the checklists, including
 commercially, if you credit TirSystem and release your adaptation under the
 same license.
 The canonical repository is on `git.tirsystem.com`; this GitHub repository is a
 read-only mirror.
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Architecture Decision Record
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-ADR-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-BC-001], [QC-DCD-001], [QC-ERD-001], [QC-PY-001], [QC-CL-001], [QC-CPP-001], [QC-CS-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 An Architecture Decision Record captures one significant decision, the options weighed and its consequences, so that the reasoning survives the people who made it. It supports the decision to accept, reject or supersede a design or architecture choice.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | The ID (`ADR-NNNN`, 4-digit) matches the filename number and is unique and sequential | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 2 | Context states the problem, the forces (cost, risk, constraints) and the options evaluated | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 3 | At least two options were considered, or the absence of alternatives is justified | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 4 | Decision is stated in one or two unhedged sentences and matches one of the evaluated options | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Usability | |
 | 5 | Consequences list both Positive and Negative outcomes | Mandatory | Maintainability, Reliability | |
 | 6 | Quality-attribute impacts (performance, security, portability, etc.) are named where the decision affects them | Optional | Performance Efficiency, Security, Portability, Compatibility | |
 | 7 | Affected Artifacts are listed as links, and each is also in CrossReference | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 8 | Status changes are recorded as new Version History rows with a Change summary and Commit link; retained rows are never rewritten | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 9 | A superseded or deprecated ADR names its successor, and the successor links back | Optional | Maintainability | |
 | 10 | Written in business or technical language of the domain, with no unexplained abbreviations | Optional | Usability | |
 | 11 | Status is one of `Proposed`, `Accepted`, `Rejected`, `Deprecated` or `Superseded by ADR-NNNN`, and every Version History row uses only these | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | `Approved` is not an ADR status |
 ## Common Defects
 - Decision described only as the chosen technology, with no problem or rationale
 - Only one option listed, presented as if it were a comparison
 - Consequences that list only benefits
 - Decision text hedged ("we might", "probably") or split across several unrelated decisions
 - Status outside the allowed set (for example `Approved`, `Final`, `Draft`)
 - Rewritten history: the status or decision changed in place instead of a new row or a superseding ADR
 - Affected Artifacts missing, so the impact of the decision cannot be traced
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001]) for the objectives and constraints that force the decision
 - Forward: Design Class Diagram checklist ([QC-DCD-001]) and Entity Relationship Diagram checklist ([QC-ERD-001]) for the design and data structures the decision shapes, and the language code checklists ([QC-PY-001], [QC-CL-001], [QC-CPP-001], [QC-CS-001]) for the implementation it constrains
 ---
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
 [QC-DCD-001]: ./qc-dcd.md
 [QC-ERD-001]: ./qc-erd.md
 [QC-PY-001]: ./qc-programming-python.md
 [QC-CL-001]: ./qc-programming-c.md
 [QC-CPP-001]: ./qc-programming-cpp.md
 [QC-CS-001]: ./qc-programming-csharp.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
 # Quality Criteria: BPMN Business Process Model
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-BPMN-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-BC-001], [QC-SA-001], [QC-UCD-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 BPMN process models describe how business goals are actually carried out across participants, so their quality directly determines whether downstream use cases and requirements are grounded in a correct, unambiguous understanding of the process.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Diagram uses valid BPMN 2.0 syntax (events, gateways, activities, sequence/message flows) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Compatibility | Verify element types and notation conform to the BPMN 2.0 specification. |
 | 2 | Swimlanes/pools are clearly defined for each participant | Mandatory | Usability, Functional Suitability | Every actor/role involved in the process has its own lane or pool. |
 | 3 | No dead-end flows; every path reaches a defined end event | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | Trace each branch from start to end event. |
 | 4 | Gateway split/join logic is consistent (matching AND/XOR pairs) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | A gateway that splits a flow must be closed by a matching gateway type. |
 | 5 | Process maps to a stated business goal from the Business Case | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Cross-check against Business Case objectives/scope. |
 | 6 | Message flows correctly cross pool boundaries and internal sequence flows do not | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Compatibility | Common notation error to check explicitly. |
 | 7 | Diagram is readable without excessive flow crossings or ambiguous labeling | Optional | Usability, Maintainability | Supports faster, less error-prone reviews and maintenance. |
 ## Common Defects
 - Sequence flows drawn across pool boundaries instead of message flows
 - Unlabeled or ambiguously labeled gateways, making split logic unclear
 - Missing end events, leaving process paths open-ended
 - Activities assigned to no lane, or to the wrong participant
 - Process diagram with no traceable link to a Business Case objective
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must link to the Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001]) for objectives/scope and the Stakeholder Analysis checklist ([QC-SA-001]) for relevant needs that justify the process.
 - Forward: Feeds into the Use Case Diagram checklist ([QC-UCD-001]) that formalizes system-supported steps of the process.
 ---
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
 [QC-SA-001]: ./qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
 [QC-UCD-001]: ./qc-use-case-diagram.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Business Case
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-BC-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-SA-001], [QC-BMC-001], [QC-BPMN-001], [QC-KPI-001], [QC-UCD-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 A Business Case justifies why a project should proceed by articulating value, cost, risk, and scope. Its quality determines whether decision-makers can approve or reject the initiative on a sound, verifiable basis rather than assumptions.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Optional | Compatibility | |
 | 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Mandatory | Usability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Reinventing stakeholder roles instead of cross-referencing Stakeholder Analysis stakeholder IDs
 - Missing Metadata/Version History tables
 - No CrossReference to related artifacts (e.g. Stakeholder Analysis)
 - Success criteria stated as aspirations without measurable targets
 - Risks listed without corresponding mitigations
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Links to the Stakeholder Analysis checklist ([QC-SA-001]) for stakeholder interests and RACI-relevant IDs.
 - Forward: Feeds into the KPI Definitions ([QC-KPI-001]), BPMN Process Model ([QC-BPMN-001]), Use Case Diagram ([QC-UCD-001]), and Business Model Canvas ([QC-BMC-001]) checklists.
 ---
 [QC-SA-001]: ./qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
 [QC-BMC-001]: ./qc-business-model-canvas.md
 [QC-BPMN-001]: ./qc-bpmn.md
 [QC-KPI-001]: ./qc-kpi.md
 [QC-UCD-001]: ./qc-use-case-diagram.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Business Model Canvas
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-BMC-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-BC-001], [QC-SA-001], [QC-BPMN-001], [QC-KPI-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 A Business Model Canvas summarizes how the project creates, delivers, and captures value in a single view. Its quality determines whether the operating model is complete, internally consistent, and grounded in real stakeholder needs rather than assumptions.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | All 9 building blocks (Key Partners, Key Activities, Key Resources, Value Propositions, Customer Relationships, Channels, Customer Segments, Cost Structure, Revenue Streams) are populated, with no empty sections | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 2 | Value proposition aligns with stakeholder needs documented in the Stakeholder Analysis | Mandatory | Usability | |
 | 3 | Assumptions underlying the canvas are explicit and testable | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 4 | Revenue streams and cost structure are internally consistent with each other | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 5 | Customer segments and channels are consistent with stakeholder groups already identified | Optional | Compatibility | |
 | 6 | Canvas cross-references the Business Case objectives it operationalizes, rather than restating them | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 7 | Canvas is reviewable as a single, concise overview (one-page) | Optional | Usability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Empty or placeholder building blocks left unfilled
 - Value proposition disconnected from stakeholders documented in the Stakeholder Analysis
 - Untestable or unstated assumptions
 - Revenue/cost figures inconsistent with the Cost-Benefit Assessment in the Business Case
 - Missing cross-reference to the Business Case or Stakeholder Analysis
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Links to the Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001]) for objectives and cost-benefit assessment, and the Stakeholder Analysis checklist ([QC-SA-001]) for customer segments and value-proposition alignment.
 - Forward: Feeds into the BPMN Process Model ([QC-BPMN-001]) and KPI Definitions ([QC-KPI-001]) checklists that operationalize the canvas.
 ---
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
 [QC-SA-001]: ./qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
 [QC-BPMN-001]: ./qc-bpmn.md
 [QC-KPI-001]: ./qc-kpi.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Design Class Diagram (DCD)
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-DCD-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-DM-001], [QC-SD-001], [QC-ERD-001], [QC-PY-001], [QC-CL-001], [QC-CPP-001], [QC-CS-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 The Design Class Diagram specifies the concrete classes, attributes, operations, and relationships that will be implemented, refining the Domain Model with design decisions from the Sequence Diagrams. Its quality directly determines the maintainability and correctness of the resulting implementation.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | SOLID principles applied; no god classes with excessive responsibilities | Mandatory | Maintainability | Single Responsibility Principle is the most commonly violated |
 | 2 | Visibility markers correct and consistent (`+` public, `-` private, `#` protected) | Mandatory | Maintainability | Encapsulation must be explicit, not assumed |
 | 3 | Relationships correctly distinguished: Association vs Aggregation vs Composition vs Dependency | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | Diamond notation must match actual ownership semantics |
 | 4 | Multiplicities and navigability specified on all associations | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Unspecified navigability leads to ambiguous implementation |
 | 5 | Applied design patterns are annotated explicitly (e.g. Singleton, Factory, Strategy) | Optional | Maintainability | Pattern intent should be discoverable from the diagram |
 | 6 | Method signatures are traceable to Operation Contracts and/or design Sequence Diagrams | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | Prevents drift between design layers |
 | 7 | Class names and structure remain consistent with the Domain Model concepts they refine | Mandatory | Maintainability, Compatibility | Design classes should not silently rename or drop domain concepts |
 | 8 | No circular dependencies between classes/packages unless explicitly justified | Optional | Maintainability, Reliability | Circular coupling harms testability and portability |
 ## Common Defects
 - God classes accumulating unrelated responsibilities
 - Missing or incorrect visibility markers
 - Composition used where the parts do not share the whole's lifecycle (or vice versa)
 - Method signatures that don't match any Operation Contract or Sequence Diagram message
 - Unannotated or inconsistently applied design patterns
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must trace to the Domain Model checklist ([QC-DM-001]) (concept origin) and the design Sequence Diagram checklist ([QC-SD-001]) (object collaborations and method signatures)
 - Forward: Feeds into the Entity Relationship Diagram checklist ([QC-ERD-001]) for persistent classes, and into the language code checklists ([QC-PY-001], [QC-CL-001], [QC-CPP-001], [QC-CS-001]) for the implementation of the classes
 ---
 [QC-DM-001]: ./qc-domain-model.md
 [QC-SD-001]: ./qc-sequence-diagram.md
 [QC-ERD-001]: ./qc-erd.md
 [QC-PY-001]: ./qc-programming-python.md
 [QC-CL-001]: ./qc-programming-c.md
 [QC-CPP-001]: ./qc-programming-cpp.md
 [QC-CS-001]: ./qc-programming-csharp.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Domain Model
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-DM-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-UC-001], [QC-UCD-001], [QC-SSD-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 The Domain Model captures the essential business vocabulary and concept relationships of the problem space, independent of any implementation. Its quality determines whether downstream design artifacts (SSDs, operation contracts, DCDs) are built on an accurate, shared understanding of the business.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Uses ubiquitous/business language throughout; no technical or implementation jargon (e.g. no "table", "class", "pointer") | Mandatory | Maintainability, Usability | Domain concepts must be recognizable to business stakeholders |
 | 2 | Multiplicities on associations are correct and complete (e.g. `1..*`, `0..1`) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Missing or vague multiplicities are a common defect |
 | 3 | No operation/method signatures shown — attributes and associations only | Mandatory | Maintainability | Domain Model is conceptual, not a design class diagram |
 | 4 | Associations are named with an unambiguous reading direction | Optional | Usability, Maintainability | e.g. "Order — placed by — Customer" |
 | 5 | Generalization/specialization used correctly, reflecting true "is-a" relationships, not misused for code reuse | Optional | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | Larman warns against inheritance abuse for implementation convenience |
 | 6 | Every concept traces to a noun phrase found in the use cases or glossary | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Prevents invented concepts with no requirement source |
 | 7 | Attributes are simple domain data (no foreign-key-like references or object pointers modeled as attributes) | Mandatory | Maintainability | Relationships should be modeled as associations, not attribute references |
 ## Common Defects
 - Modeling database tables or classes instead of business concepts
 - Including operations/methods on domain concepts
 - Missing or incorrect multiplicities on key associations
 - Unnamed or ambiguously-directioned associations
 - Overuse of generalization hierarchies for convenience rather than genuine taxonomy
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must trace to concepts and terminology introduced in the Use Case checklist ([QC-UC-001]) (and Use Case Diagram checklist [QC-UCD-001]/glossary)
 - Forward: Feeds into the System Sequence Diagram checklist ([QC-SSD-001]), which references domain concepts as message parameters and return types
 ---
 [QC-UC-001]: ./qc-use-case.md
 [QC-UCD-001]: ./qc-use-case-diagram.md
 [QC-SSD-001]: ./qc-ssd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-ERD-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-DCD-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 The Entity Relationship Diagram specifies the persistent data structure that will back the system's Design Class Diagram, defining entities, keys, and relationships for storage. Its quality determines data integrity, query performance, and consistency between the design and the persisted data model.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Primary keys (PK) identified for every entity | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | Every entity must have a unique identifier |
 | 2 | Foreign keys (FK) identified for every relationship requiring referential integrity | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | Prevents orphaned or ambiguous references |
 | 3 | Schema normalized to at least 3NF unless denormalization is explicitly justified for performance | Optional | Maintainability, Performance Efficiency | Justification must be documented in Notes when denormalized |
 | 4 | Relationship cardinalities specified (1:1, 1:N, N:M) for every relationship | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Missing cardinality is a common review-blocking defect |
 | 5 | Data types consistent with corresponding Operation Contract/DCD attribute types | Mandatory | Compatibility, Maintainability | Prevents silent type mismatches between design and storage |
 | 6 | N:M relationships resolved via explicit junction/associative entities | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Required for correct relational representation |
 | 7 | Naming conventions for entities/attributes are consistent and free of implementation-specific abbreviations | Optional | Usability, Maintainability | Improves readability and long-term maintainability |
 ## Common Defects
 - Entities without a defined primary key
 - Missing foreign keys on relationships that require referential integrity
 - Unresolved N:M relationships without a junction entity
 - Data types inconsistent with the DCD/Operation Contracts they implement
 - Denormalization applied without documented performance justification
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must trace to the Design Class Diagram checklist ([QC-DCD-001]), particularly persistent classes and their attributes/associations
 - Forward: Feeds into physical database implementation (schema creation, migrations) — outside this project's scope and outside the QC checklist chain, but must remain consistent with it
 ---
 [QC-DCD-001]: ./qc-dcd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Governance / ARB Workflow
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-GOV-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-BC-001], [QC-SA-001], [QC-BPMN-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 Allowed Status values: `Proposed`, `Accepted`, `Rejected`, `Deprecated`. The latest reviewed row is `Accepted`; the row before it is `Deprecated`.
 ---
 ## Purpose
 A governance document defines who reviews what, who decides, and how disputes are settled. A gap in it (an unowned artifact type, a step with no actor, an unworkable independence rule) turns into unreviewed or contested artifacts. This checklist supports the decision to accept a governance or ARB workflow document as the basis for real reviews.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Purpose states what is governed and traces to the Business Case's governance and traceability objectives (a framework-level document that cannot cite project artifacts traces to the governance document it supports instead) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 2 | Workflow steps are ordered, and every step names the role that performs it | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Usability | A passive step with no actor is a defect |
 | 3 | The RACI covers every in-scope artifact type, with exactly one Accountable per category | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | Compare against the Business Case scope list |
 | 4 | Roles are stakeholder IDs taken exactly from the Stakeholder Analysis; no invented role names | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 5 | Each verdict (Go, Go-with-conditions, No-Go) defines the resulting artifact status, using only allowed status values | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 6 | Disputed or No-Go verdicts have an escalation path to a named stakeholder | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 7 | The reviewer-independence rule can be applied: a named alternate exists when the reviewer is the author | Optional | Reliability | |
 | 8 | Review cadence is stated for artifact instances and for the checklists themselves | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 9 | The document links the process artifacts it relies on (traceability matrix, review process, process model) | Optional | Maintainability, Usability | |
 | 10 | Written without duplicated words or unexplained abbreviations | Optional | Usability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - A workflow step written in the passive voice with no responsible role
 - An in-scope artifact type that appears in no RACI category
 - Two Accountable roles for one category, or none
 - Status outcomes that use a value outside the allowed set, or leave a verdict's outcome undefined
 - An independence rule with no one to reassign to
 - Cadence stated for instances but not for the checklists
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001]) for the governance and traceability objectives; Stakeholder Analysis checklist ([QC-SA-001]) for the roles used in the RACI
 - Forward: BPMN Process Model checklist ([QC-BPMN-001]) for the process model drawn from the workflow
 ---
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
 [QC-SA-001]: ./qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
 [QC-BPMN-001]: ./qc-bpmn.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
 # Quality Criteria: KPI Definitions
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-KPI-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-BC-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 KPI definitions translate business objectives into measurable indicators, so their quality determines whether progress toward the Business Case's success criteria can be objectively tracked and acted upon.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | KPI is defined in SMART format (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Reject vague or non-quantifiable KPI statements. |
 | 2 | Baseline and target values are both defined | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | Without a baseline, progress cannot be measured. |
 | 3 | KPI is aligned with a stated Business Case success criterion | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Cross-check against Business Case Success Criteria table. |
 | 4 | An owner/stakeholder is assigned for tracking the KPI | Mandatory | Usability, Maintainability | Ensures accountability for ongoing measurement. |
 | 5 | Measurement frequency and method are explicitly stated | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | E.g. "measured monthly via review-cycle audit logs." |
 | 6 | Data source for the measurement is identified and accessible | Optional | Reliability, Portability | Prevents KPIs that cannot actually be measured in practice. |
 | 7 | KPI thresholds distinguish acceptable, at-risk, and failing performance | Optional | Functional Suitability, Usability | Supports clear reporting and decision-making. |
 ## Common Defects
 - KPI stated as a goal or activity rather than a measurable metric
 - Missing baseline, making the target value meaningless
 - No named owner responsible for tracking or reporting
 - KPI not traceable to any Business Case success criterion
 - Measurement method or frequency left unspecified
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must link to the Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001]) Success Criteria that the KPI operationalizes.
 - Forward: Feeds into SQA review metrics and governance reporting used to evaluate the framework's ongoing performance — outside the QC checklist chain.
 ---
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Milestones / Gateways
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-MIL-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-BC-001], [QC-KPI-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 Milestones and gateways define the checkpoints at which project progress and quality are formally evaluated, so their quality determines whether governance decisions to proceed, rework, or stop are made on objective, well-scoped grounds.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | A concrete deliverable is defined for every gate | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Reject gates with no tangible output to evaluate. |
 | 2 | Explicit Go/No-Go criteria are stated for each gate | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | Criteria must be objectively checkable, not subjective. |
 | 3 | Dependencies on other milestones are explicitly mapped | Optional | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | Prevents scheduling conflicts and hidden ordering assumptions. |
 | 4 | Each milestone is traceable to a Business Case objective or KPI | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Cross-check against Business Case Objectives/Success Criteria. |
 | 5 | Milestone owner and approving reviewer are identified | Mandatory | Usability, Maintainability | Ensures accountability for the Go/No-Go decision. |
 | 6 | Milestone has a defined target date consistent with project constraints | Mandatory | Reliability | Cross-check against Business Case Constraints (e.g. 12-week duration). |
 ## Common Defects
 - Gate with no defined deliverable, only a date
 - Go/No-Go criteria left implicit or subjective
 - Milestone dependencies omitted, causing sequencing conflicts
 - Milestone with no link to any Business Case objective or KPI
 - No named owner or reviewer accountable for the gate decision
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must link to the Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001]) scope/objectives and the KPI Definitions checklist ([QC-KPI-001]) for relevant KPIs that justify the milestone.
 - Forward: Feeds into governance sign-off gates and SQA review scheduling that enforce the Go/No-Go decision — outside the QC checklist chain.
 ---
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
 [QC-KPI-001]: ./qc-kpi.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Operation Contract
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-OC-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-SSD-001], [QC-DM-001], [QC-SD-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 An Operation Contract precisely specifies the effect of a single system operation (identified on an SSD) in terms of preconditions and postconditions on the Domain Model, without prescribing implementation. Its quality is essential for unambiguous, testable behavioral specifications that bridge analysis and design.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Method signature is complete: operation name, parameter types, and return type | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Signature must match the corresponding SSD message |
 | 2 | Preconditions explicitly list required state before execution | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | Must reference Domain Model concepts, not implementation state |
 | 3 | Postconditions explicitly describe resulting state using Larman's "instance created/associated/attribute modified" style | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Avoid describing algorithmic steps; describe state deltas only |
 | 4 | Exceptions and error conditions are documented, including the triggering precondition failure | Mandatory | Reliability, Security | Ensures error handling is designed, not assumed |
 | 5 | Operation is explicitly traceable to a single SSD message | Mandatory | Maintainability | One contract per system operation |
 | 6 | Contract avoids specifying implementation/algorithmic details (declarative, not procedural) | Optional | Maintainability | Contracts describe "what", not "how" |
 | 7 | Cross-references the Domain Model classes/associations affected by pre/postconditions | Optional | Maintainability | Keeps contract consistent with the Domain Model |
 ## Common Defects
 - Missing or vague postconditions (e.g. "system processes the request")
 - Describing implementation logic instead of state changes
 - Preconditions that don't match the actual guard conditions needed
 - No traceability reference back to the originating SSD message
 - Omitting exception/error conditions entirely
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must trace to a specific System Sequence Diagram checklist ([QC-SSD-001]) message and the Domain Model checklist ([QC-DM-001]) concepts referenced in pre/postconditions
 - Forward: Feeds into the design-level Sequence Diagram checklist ([QC-SD-001]) that realizes the operation's postconditions through object collaborations
 ---
 [QC-SSD-001]: ./qc-ssd.md
 [QC-DM-001]: ./qc-domain-model.md
 [QC-SD-001]: ./qc-sequence-diagram.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
 # Quality Criteria: C Source Code
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-CL-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-DCD-001], [QC-ADR-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 C gives no safety net: memory, bounds and error handling are the programmer's job. This checklist confirms that C code follows the C coding conventions (naming with module prefixes, explicit ownership, checked errors), so that it is maintainable and free of the defects that cause crashes and vulnerabilities.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Functions and variables are `snake_case`; public symbols carry the module prefix; macros and enum constants are `UPPER_SNAKE` | Mandatory | Maintainability, Compatibility | |
 | 2 | No reserved identifiers (leading underscore plus uppercase, double underscore) | Mandatory | Portability, Reliability | |
 | 3 | Code compiles cleanly with the project's warning flags and the declared C standard | Mandatory | Reliability, Portability | |
 | 4 | Code is produced by the project's formatter; braces are used on every control-flow body | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 5 | Every return value that can fail, including allocation, is checked | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 6 | Every acquired resource (memory, file, lock) has one owner and is released on every exit path | Mandatory | Reliability, Performance Efficiency | |
 | 7 | Every buffer is passed with its length; bounded functions (`snprintf`) are used, never `gets`, `sprintf` or `strcpy` | Mandatory | Security, Reliability | |
 | 8 | No undefined behaviour: no signed overflow, use after free, out-of-bounds access or uninitialised reads | Mandatory | Reliability, Security | |
 | 9 | Headers are self-contained, guarded, and expose only what callers need; internals are `static` | Mandatory | Maintainability, Compatibility | |
 | 10 | Mutable global state is avoided, or is `static` and documented | Optional | Maintainability, Reliability | |
 | 11 | Error reporting (status codes, `errno` use) is documented in the header | Optional | Usability, Reliability | |
 | 12 | Tests cover new behaviour and run under address and undefined-behaviour sanitizers in at least one build | Optional | Reliability, Security | |
 | 13 | Modules and functions trace to the Design Class Diagram or design artifact they implement | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Unchecked `malloc` or `fopen` results
 - Missing `free` or `close` on an early-return or error path
 - Buffer sized without a length parameter; `strcpy` or `sprintf` on external input
 - Public function or type without the module prefix, colliding across modules
 - Macros doing the work of `static inline` functions or `enum`
 - Identifiers starting with an underscore and an uppercase letter
 - Undefined behaviour hidden by a build that happens to work
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Design Class Diagram checklist ([QC-DCD-001]) for the modules and operations being implemented; Architecture Decision Record checklist ([QC-ADR-001]) for the decisions that constrain the implementation
 - Forward: none — source code is the end of the QC checklist chain
 ---
 [QC-DCD-001]: ./qc-dcd.md
 [QC-ADR-001]: ./qc-adr.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
 # Quality Criteria: C++ Source Code
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-CPP-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-DCD-001], [QC-ADR-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 C++ offers automatic resource management when used as designed and the same hazards as C when not. This checklist confirms that C++ code follows the C++ coding conventions (naming, RAII, C++ Core Guidelines), so that it is safe, maintainable and consistent with the design it implements.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Types are `PascalCase`; functions and variables `snake_case`; private members end in `_`; constants use `k` + `PascalCase`; namespaces are lowercase | Mandatory | Maintainability, Usability | |
 | 2 | Names state purpose in the domain's language; no unexplained abbreviations | Mandatory | Maintainability, Usability | |
 | 3 | Code compiles cleanly with the project's warning flags and the declared C++ standard | Mandatory | Reliability, Portability | |
 | 4 | Code is produced by the project's formatter; includes are ordered and self-contained headers | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 5 | No owning raw pointers and no naked `new`/`delete`; resources are held by RAII types (`unique_ptr`, containers, guards) | Mandatory | Reliability, Security | |
 | 6 | Special member functions follow the rule of zero, or all five are defined or deleted | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 7 | `const`, `constexpr`, `explicit`, `override` and `[[nodiscard]]` are used where they apply | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 8 | No C-style casts, no `using namespace` in headers, no macros where a function, `constexpr` or `enum class` works | Mandatory | Maintainability, Reliability | |
 | 9 | Error handling uses one strategy per project (exceptions or error codes); destructors do not throw; no silent `catch (...)` | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 10 | Non-owning parameters use views (`std::span`, `std::string_view`) or `const&`; no dangling references to temporaries | Optional | Performance Efficiency, Reliability | |
 | 11 | Static analysis with the Core Guidelines checks is clean, or each suppression is justified | Optional | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 12 | Tests cover new behaviour and run under address and undefined-behaviour sanitizers in at least one build | Optional | Reliability, Security | |
 | 13 | Classes and operations trace to the Design Class Diagram they implement; deviations are recorded | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - `new` and `delete` in application code, or a raw owning pointer member
 - Destructor, copy or move operations defined inconsistently (only some of the five)
 - Missing `override` or `explicit`; ignored return values of `[[nodiscard]]` functions
 - `using namespace std;` in a header
 - Macros for constants or small functions
 - Returning a reference or view to a local or temporary
 - Exceptions and error codes mixed in the same module without a stated rule
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Design Class Diagram checklist ([QC-DCD-001]) for the classes and operations being implemented; Architecture Decision Record checklist ([QC-ADR-001]) for the decisions that constrain the implementation
 - Forward: none — source code is the end of the QC checklist chain
 ---
 [QC-DCD-001]: ./qc-dcd.md
 [QC-ADR-001]: ./qc-adr.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
 # Quality Criteria: C# Source Code
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-CS-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-DCD-001], [QC-ADR-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 C# code carries the design into a managed runtime where naming, nullability, disposal and async usage decide whether it stays maintainable and correct. This checklist confirms that C# code follows the C# coding conventions (Microsoft naming and design guidelines), so that it is consistent with .NET practice and with the design it implements.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Types, methods, properties and constants are `PascalCase`; parameters and locals `camelCase`; private fields `_camelCase`; interfaces start with `I` | Mandatory | Maintainability, Usability | |
 | 2 | Async methods end in `Async`; exceptions end in `Exception`; one top-level type per file, named after the file | Mandatory | Maintainability, Usability | |
 | 3 | Code is formatted per the project's `.editorconfig` and builds with no unexplained analyzer suppressions | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 4 | Nullable reference types are enabled; the null-forgiving operator (`!`) is justified in a comment | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 5 | `IDisposable` objects are disposed with `using`; no resource leaks on exception paths | Mandatory | Reliability, Performance Efficiency | |
 | 6 | Async code uses `await` throughout: no `.Result` or `.Wait()` and no `async void` outside event handlers | Mandatory | Reliability, Performance Efficiency | |
 | 7 | Specific exceptions are thrown; arguments are validated at public boundaries; rethrow uses `throw;`; no empty `catch` | Mandatory | Reliability, Security | |
 | 8 | Public types and members have XML documentation comments | Optional | Usability, Maintainability | |
 | 9 | State is exposed through properties, not public fields; immutability (`readonly`, `init`, `record`) is preferred where it fits | Optional | Maintainability, Reliability | |
 | 10 | Money uses `decimal`; points in time use `DateTimeOffset` | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | |
 | 11 | Public async APIs accept and pass a `CancellationToken` where the operation can be cancelled | Optional | Performance Efficiency, Reliability | |
 | 12 | Tests cover new behaviour, are named `Method_Condition_Expected`, and do not depend on order, time or the network | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 13 | Classes and members trace to the Design Class Diagram they implement; deviations are recorded | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - camelCase methods or snake_case members carried over from another language
 - Nullable warnings silenced with `!` or pragmas
 - `Task.Result` or `.Wait()` on the request path (deadlocks and thread starvation)
 - `throw ex;` destroying the stack trace; empty `catch` blocks
 - Undisposed `HttpClient`, streams or database connections
 - `DateTime` used for instants, or `double` for money
 - Several public types in one file, or a file name that differs from its type
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Design Class Diagram checklist ([QC-DCD-001]) for the classes and members being implemented; Architecture Decision Record checklist ([QC-ADR-001]) for the decisions that constrain the implementation
 - Forward: none — source code is the end of the QC checklist chain
 ---
 [QC-DCD-001]: ./qc-dcd.md
 [QC-ADR-001]: ./qc-adr.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Python Source Code
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-PY-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-DCD-001], [QC-ADR-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 Python source code is the implementation of the design. This checklist confirms that code follows the Python coding conventions (PEP 8 naming and layout, type hints, error handling), so that it is readable, maintainable and consistent with the design it implements.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Packages, modules, functions, variables, classes and constants follow PEP 8 casing (`snake_case`, `PascalCase`, `UPPER_SNAKE`) | Mandatory | Maintainability, Usability | |
 | 2 | Names state purpose in the domain's language; no unexplained abbreviations, no single-letter names outside tiny scopes | Mandatory | Maintainability, Usability | |
 | 3 | Code is produced by the project's formatter and passes its linter with no unexplained suppressions | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 4 | Every function and method signature is type-annotated, including `-> None` | Mandatory | Maintainability, Reliability | |
 | 5 | No bare `except:`, no swallowed exceptions; specific exceptions are raised and the cause is kept (`raise ... from`) | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 6 | No mutable default arguments and no shadowed builtins | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 7 | Files, locks and connections are managed with context managers | Mandatory | Reliability, Performance Efficiency | |
 | 8 | Public modules, classes and functions have docstrings that say what, not how | Optional | Usability, Maintainability | |
 | 9 | Logging uses `logging`, not `print`; no secrets or personal data in log output | Mandatory | Security, Maintainability | |
 | 10 | Classes and operations trace to the Design Class Diagram they implement; deviations are recorded | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 11 | Tests exist for new behaviour, are named for the behaviour, and do not depend on order or the network | Mandatory | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 12 | Type checker runs in strict mode without errors; `Any` is justified in a comment | Optional | Reliability, Maintainability | |
 | 13 | Dependencies are declared and pinned in the project's dependency file, none unused | Optional | Portability, Security | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Java- or C#-style casing (`getTotal`, `customerList` for functions and variables)
 - Missing or partial type annotations
 - Bare `except:` or `except Exception: pass`
 - Mutable default arguments (`def f(x=[])`)
 - `print` used for diagnostics; wildcard imports
 - Code reformatted by hand, or an unrelated reformat mixed into a functional change
 - Classes or methods that appear in no design artifact and have no stated reason
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Design Class Diagram checklist ([QC-DCD-001]) for the classes and operations being implemented; Architecture Decision Record checklist ([QC-ADR-001]) for the decisions that constrain the implementation
 - Forward: none — source code is the end of the QC checklist chain
 ---
 [QC-DCD-001]: ./qc-dcd.md
 [QC-ADR-001]: ./qc-adr.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Sequence Diagram (Design)
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-SD-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-OC-001], [QC-DCD-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 A design-level Sequence Diagram shows how internal design objects collaborate to fulfill an Operation Contract's postconditions, applying GRASP/GoF patterns for responsibility assignment. Its quality determines whether the resulting object interactions are correct, maintainable, and implementable as specified.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Message passing strictly follows UML sync/async/return arrow syntax | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | Solid filled-arrow for sync calls, open arrow for async, dashed for returns |
 | 2 | GRASP/GoF patterns applied and explicitly annotated where used (e.g. Controller, Observer, Mediator, Factory) | Optional | Maintainability | Pattern usage must be labeled, not implicit |
 | 3 | Lifelines show activation bars matching actual processing time/call nesting | Optional | Performance Efficiency, Maintainability | Nested activations must reflect the true call stack |
 | 4 | Object creation and destruction shown with correct UML notation (`create`/`destroy` messages, X on lifeline) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Missing creation messages hide important object lifecycle |
 | 5 | Diagram realizes the postconditions of a specific Operation Contract | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Every postcondition must be satisfiable by the shown collaboration |
 | 6 | Responsibility assignment favors low coupling/high cohesion (no god-object receiving all messages) | Optional | Maintainability | Reviewer should check GRASP Controller isn't overloaded |
 | 7 | Loop, alt, and opt combined fragments used correctly for conditional/repeated behavior | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Avoids ambiguous or missing control flow |
 | 8 | Each exception of the realized Operation Contract is shown as an `alt` or `opt` fragment, or its absence is justified | Optional | Reliability, Functional Suitability | Keeps the design consistent with the contract's error conditions |
 ## Common Defects
 - Arrow types inconsistent with UML (e.g. using sync arrows for async calls)
 - No annotation of applied design patterns, leaving intent implicit
 - A single "god" controller object receiving and handling all responsibilities
 - Missing creation/destruction notation for transient objects
 - Diagram does not actually satisfy the referenced Operation Contract's postconditions
 - An error condition of the Operation Contract that never appears in the diagram, or an error drawn as a fragment that does not stop the flow
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must trace to a specific Operation Contract checklist ([QC-OC-001]) whose postconditions the collaboration fulfills
 - Forward: Feeds into the Design Class Diagram checklist ([QC-DCD-001]), where participating objects become classes with the operations/messages shown here
 ---
 [QC-OC-001]: ./qc-operation-contract.md
 [QC-DCD-001]: ./qc-dcd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
 # Quality Criteria: System Sequence Diagram (SSD)
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-SSD-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-UC-001], [QC-DM-001], [QC-OC-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 The System Sequence Diagram illustrates the interaction between an actor and the system as a black box, for one use case scenario. Its quality ensures that the boundary between external actors and internal system behavior is captured accurately before internal design begins.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Input/output messages match the corresponding Use Case's main success scenario step-for-step | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | The primary purpose of an SSD; deviations must be justified |
 | 2 | Actor and System are treated strictly as black boxes (system shown as `:System`) | Mandatory | Maintainability, Compatibility | No internal object interactions may appear on an SSD |
 | 3 | Object creation/destruction of the System instance handled explicitly where relevant | Optional | Functional Suitability | Applies mainly to session/transaction-scoped interactions |
 | 4 | Return values are shown for operations that produce one, using dashed return arrows | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | Missing return arrows hide important system responses |
 | 5 | Alternate/exceptional flows are represented separately (or explicitly out of scope noted) | Mandatory | Reliability | Prevents conflating happy-path and error-path in a single diagram |
 | 6 | Message names are verb phrases consistent with the use case's system responsibilities | Optional | Usability, Maintainability | Improves traceability to Operation Contracts |
 | 7 | Diagram references the specific Use Case (name and ID) it depicts | Mandatory | Maintainability | Required for backward traceability |
 ## Common Defects
 - Showing internal objects or classes instead of a single `:System` lifeline
 - Message sequence not matching the use case's main success scenario
 - Missing return values for queries or commands that report a result
 - Mixing multiple use case scenarios into a single SSD without separation
 - No reference to the source Use Case
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Must trace to a specific Use Case checklist ([QC-UC-001]) main success scenario and the Domain Model checklist ([QC-DM-001]) concepts used as message parameters/return types
 - Forward: Feeds into the Operation Contract checklist ([QC-OC-001]), one per system operation (message) shown on the SSD
 ---
 [QC-UC-001]: ./qc-use-case.md
 [QC-DM-001]: ./qc-domain-model.md
 [QC-OC-001]: ./qc-operation-contract.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Stakeholder Analysis
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-SA-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-BC-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 A Stakeholder Analysis is the foundational artifact that identifies who has influence over, or interest in, the project. Its quality determines whether later artifacts (Business Case, Business Model Canvas, requirements, RACI assignments) engage the right people with the right level of attention.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 2 | Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 3 | Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 4 | Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones | Optional | Usability | |
 | 5 | Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies | Mandatory | Reliability | |
 | 6 | Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 7 | Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+) | Optional | Functional Suitability | |
 | 8 | Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry | Optional | Usability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Stakeholders described only qualitatively, without a stable ID that other artifacts can reuse for RACI
 - Power/Interest quadrant missing, or inconsistent with the surrounding rationale narrative
 - Communication plan omitted, or not tied to any project phase/milestone
 - Conflicts of interest glossed over or left undocumented
 - No traceability linkage from stakeholder concerns back to Business Case objectives
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: None — Stakeholder Analysis is foundational and has no prerequisite artifact.
 - Forward: Feeds into the Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001]) stakeholder cross-references, and transitively into the Business Model Canvas ([QC-BMC-001]), KPI Definitions ([QC-KPI-001]), and RACI assignments in downstream artifacts.
 ---
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
 [QC-BMC-001]: ./qc-business-model-canvas.md
 [QC-KPI-001]: ./qc-kpi.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Use Case Diagram
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-UCD-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-SA-001], [QC-BC-001], [QC-US-001], [QC-UC-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 Use case diagrams define the system boundary and the actors that interact with it, establishing shared scope agreement before detailed behavior is specified. They anchor traceability between stakeholder needs and the more detailed use case and user story artifacts that follow.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Actors are defined with correct UML stereotypes (e.g. `<<System>>`, `<<Actor>>`) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 2 | System boundary is clearly drawn and labeled | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 3 | Include/extend relationships are used correctly per UML 2.5.1, not as generic "uses" arrows | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 4 | Every actor participates in at least one use case (no orphan actors) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability | |
 | 5 | Diagram is traceable to a documented stakeholder need | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 6 | Use case names are verb phrases describing actor goals, not internal system operations | Mandatory | Usability, Maintainability | |
 | 7 | Diagram is free of implementation detail (e.g. UI widgets, database tables) | Optional | Maintainability, Portability | |
 | 8 | Actor and use case naming is consistent with corresponding Use Case and User Story documents | Optional | Compatibility, Maintainability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Actors modeled as use cases, or use cases modeled as actors
 - Overuse of `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` to represent what is really normal sequential flow
 - Missing or ambiguous system boundary
 - Orphan actors with no connected use case
 - Use case names phrased as system functions (e.g. "Validate Input") rather than user goals (e.g. "Place Order")
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Stakeholder Analysis checklist ([QC-SA-001]), Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001])
 - Forward: User Story checklist ([QC-US-001]), Use Case checklist ([QC-UC-001]) (Brief, Casual, Fully Dressed)
 ---
 [QC-SA-001]: ./qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md
 [QC-US-001]: ./qc-user-story.md
 [QC-UC-001]: ./qc-use-case.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
 # Quality Criteria: Use Case (Brief / Casual / Fully Dressed)
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-UC-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-UCD-001], [QC-US-001], [QC-SA-001], [QC-DM-001], [QC-SSD-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 Use cases describe actor-goal-driven system behavior at three levels of formality (Brief, Casual, Fully Dressed, per Larman's *Applying UML and Patterns*), providing the functional detail that bridges stakeholder intent and downstream design artifacts such as the Domain Model and System Sequence Diagrams.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | Format | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Mandatory | Brief | Functional Suitability | |
 | 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | Mandatory | Casual | Functional Suitability | |
 | 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | Mandatory | Fully Dressed | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Mandatory | All | Functional Suitability | |
 | 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Mandatory | All | Functional Suitability | |
 | 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Mandatory | Fully Dressed | Functional Suitability | |
 | 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | Mandatory | Fully Dressed | Usability, Maintainability | |
 | 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | Mandatory | Fully Dressed | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | Optional | Fully Dressed | Functional Suitability, Reliability | |
 | 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Mandatory | All | Compatibility, Maintainability | |
 | 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Optional | All | Usability, Maintainability | |
 | 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Mandatory | All | Usability, Portability | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Fully Dressed use case missing postconditions or exception/alternative flows
 - Brief use case bloated with step-by-step detail that belongs in the Fully Dressed format
 - Casual use case omitting the primary actor or the actor's goal
 - Business rules embedded loosely in narrative text instead of stated explicitly per step
 - Inconsistent actor or use case naming versus the corresponding Use Case Diagram
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Use Case Diagram checklist ([QC-UCD-001]), User Story checklist ([QC-US-001]), Stakeholder Analysis checklist ([QC-SA-001])
 - Forward: Domain Model checklist ([QC-DM-001]), System Sequence Diagram checklist ([QC-SSD-001])
 ---
 [QC-UCD-001]: ./qc-use-case-diagram.md
 [QC-US-001]: ./qc-user-story.md
 [QC-SA-001]: ./qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
 [QC-DM-001]: ./qc-domain-model.md
 [QC-SSD-001]: ./qc-ssd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
 # Quality Criteria: User Story
 ## Metadata
 | Key | Value |
 | --- | --- |
 | ID | QC-US-001 |
 | CrossReference | [QC-UCD-001], [QC-UC-001], [QC-BC-001] |
 | DomainLanguages | IT Professional English |
 ## Version History
 | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 2026-10-01 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S07 | First public release (1.0.0) | — |
 ---
 ## Purpose
 User stories capture user-valued increments of functionality in a lightweight, negotiable format that drives backlog prioritization, estimation, and iterative delivery planning.
 ## Quality Criteria Checklist
 Level: **Mandatory** criteria are the baseline every instance must meet; **Optional** criteria are advanced and may be deferred.
 | # | Criterion | Level | ISO/IEC 25010 Characteristic(s) | Notes |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | 1 | Follows INVEST criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable) | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Maintainability | |
 | 2 | Written in "As a / I want / So that" form | Mandatory | Usability | |
 | 3 | Clear, testable acceptance criteria are included | Mandatory | Functional Suitability, Reliability | |
 | 4 | Traceable to a use case or epic | Mandatory | Maintainability | |
 | 5 | Story is sized to fit within a single iteration | Optional | Maintainability | |
 | 6 | Story statement avoids technical implementation detail | Optional | Usability, Maintainability | |
 | 7 | Role named in the story matches an actor defined in the Use Case Diagram | Mandatory | Compatibility | |
 ## Common Defects
 - Compound stories bundling multiple unrelated goals ("As a... I want X and Y and Z")
 - Missing, vague, or unverifiable acceptance criteria
 - Role that does not match any actor defined elsewhere
 - Stories phrased as implementation tasks rather than user-valued outcomes
 ## Traceability Rule
 - Backward: Use Case Diagram checklist ([QC-UCD-001]), Use Case checklist ([QC-UC-001]) (Brief/Casual), Business Case checklist ([QC-BC-001])
 - Forward: Iteration/Sprint backlog, Fully Dressed Use Cases ([QC-UC-001]), acceptance tests — the backlog/tests are outside the QC checklist chain
 ---
 [QC-UCD-001]: ./qc-use-case-diagram.md
 [QC-UC-001]: ./qc-use-case.md
 [QC-BC-001]: ./qc-business-case.md