diff --git a/docs/artifact-registry.md b/docs/artifact-registry.md
index 243d055..221262c 100644
--- a/docs/artifact-registry.md
+++ b/docs/artifact-registry.md
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ each document lives in *this* project and the next version to use.
 | SA | Stakeholder Analysis | docs/stakeholder-analysis.md | 002 |
 | PP | Project Plan | docs/project-plan.md | 002 |
 | MIL | Milestone / Gateway | docs/milestones/*.md | 005 |
-| RC | SQA Review Record | docs/sqa/reviews/rc-*.md | 001 |
+| RC | SQA Review Record | docs/sqa/reviews/rc-*.md | 004 |
 
 ## Languages
 
diff --git a/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-001-business-case.md b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-001-business-case.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d15ec07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-001-business-case.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Review Record: BC-001 Business Case
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-001 |
+| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-10 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S05 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001] (`QC-BC-001`)
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | The Cost–Benefit Assessment states costs as qualitative with no external cost and lists benefits; the qualitative form is labelled. |
+| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Risks table has Risk, Impact and Mitigation for every row. |
+| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Four criteria, each with a target and a measure. |
+| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | Scope has separate In Scope and Out of Scope lists. |
+| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table uses S01 to S05; the ID, not a role description, identifies each. |
+| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Methodological and Standards Foundation cites the framework, Larman and ISO/IEC 25010:2023. |
+| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Separate Assumptions and Constraints sections. The 2026-10-10 change edits the mirror assumption only. |
+| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation section: Proceed, with the reason. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — all eight criteria pass. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10 for the revision that changes the mirror assumption to at most one GitHub push mirror. The author and the approving reviewer are the same person (S01); an independent review by S05 is recorded as an action item.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Independent review of this record and of BC-001 by a person other than the author (the rule that the reviewer must not be the author) | S05 | 2026-10-17 |
+
+---
+
+[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
+[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-business-case.md
diff --git a/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-project-plan.md b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-project-plan.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9b32001
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-project-plan.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Review Record: PP-001 Project Plan
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-002 |
+| CrossReference | [PP-001], [BC-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-10 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S05 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [PP-001]
+- Checklist used: none: the Project Plan has no QC checklist (catalog and `PP.md` reference). Validated against the Business Case [BC-001] constraints and the Go / No-Go criteria of each listed milestone, as `PP.md` prescribes.
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Every milestone in the plan has a `MIL-*` document and the plan's dates equal that document's target date | Pass | MIL-001 to MIL-004 exist; decision dates 2026-10-17, 10-31, 11-14, 11-28 match the Target Date of each milestone. |
+| 2 | Every Business Case scope item is covered by a gateway | Pass | Scope Coverage maps validation, documentation, quality checks and release to MIL-001 to MIL-004. |
+| 3 | The schedule respects the Business Case constraints | Pass | The Business Case sets no deadline; the plan states its dates are proposals. The constraint that nothing is written before a milestone is accepted is repeated in Planning Assumptions. |
+| 4 | Dependencies between milestones are stated | Pass | Dependencies section gives MIL-001 to MIL-002 to MIL-003 to MIL-004. |
+| 5 | Every gateway has an owner who is a stakeholder ID | Pass | All four gateways are owned by S05. |
+| 6 | Plan content is consistent with the revised mirror behaviour | Pass | UC candidate 1 now describes no GitHub mirror as a successful skip and several mirrors as a failure. |
+| 7 | Open Issues are current | Fail | Open Issues still lists the decisions for MIL-001 task 1 and task 3 as open; both were decided and recorded in MIL-001. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10 for the revision to UC candidate 1. One stale entry in Open Issues does not affect the schedule or the changed use case; it is recorded as an action item. The author and the approving reviewer are the same person (S01); independent review by S05 is recorded in RC-001 and applies here too.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Remove the answered MIL-001 task 1 and task 3 items from Open Issues in PP-001, with a Version History row | S01 | 2026-10-17 |
+| Confirm the proposed dates and the start week (already listed in Open Issues) | S01 | 2026-10-17 |
+
+---
+
+[PP-001]: ../../project-plan.md
+[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
diff --git a/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-003-mil-001.md b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-003-mil-001.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a73442c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-003-mil-001.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Review Record: MIL-001 Stabilise the metadata sync
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-003 |
+| CrossReference | [MIL-001], [QC-MIL-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-10 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S05 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [MIL-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-MIL-001] (`QC-MIL-001`)
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | A concrete deliverable is defined for every gate | Pass | Deliverable section: one canonical workflow, passing validation and tests, an accurate README and a manual run. |
+| 2 | Explicit Go/No-Go criteria are stated for each gate | Pass | Five criteria, each with an objectively checkable Go and No-Go column. |
+| 3 | Dependencies on other milestones are explicitly mapped | Pass | Dependencies: none, first milestone. |
+| 4 | Each milestone is traceable to a Business Case objective or KPI | Pass | Traceability maps MIL-001 to O1 and O2 of BC-001. |
+| 5 | Milestone owner and approving reviewer are identified | Pass | Owner S05 and approving reviewer S01. |
+| 6 | Milestone has a defined target date consistent with project constraints | Pass | Target date 2026-10-17, marked proposed; the Business Case sets no deadline, so there is nothing to contradict. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — all six criteria pass. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10 for the amendment of the task 1 decision (zero GitHub mirrors is a successful skip) and the matching task 5 test scope. Go / No-Go criterion 5 (manual run on Gitea) is still open as task 7 (issue 7) and is not changed by this amendment. The author and the approving reviewer are the same person (S01); independent review by S05 is recorded in RC-001 and applies here too.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Run the manual `workflow_dispatch` check on Gitea for the amended behaviour: a repository with a GitHub mirror and one without (task 7) | S05 | 2026-10-17 |
+
+---
+
+[MIL-001]: ../../milestones/mil-001-stabilise-metadata-sync.md
+[QC-MIL-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-milestones-gateways.md