# Review Record: BC-001 (objective O7, English comments check)

## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-084 |
| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001] |

## Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-10-19 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version; accepted by the author in chat as stand-in for S01 | pending |

---

## Artifact Under Review

- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001]
- Scope: delta re-review of criteria 2, 3, 4 and 7 (the change adds objective O7, an In Scope bullet, an assumption, a constraint and success criterion 7); criteria 1, 5, 6 and 8 are re-read and unchanged. Earlier record: [RC-081]
- Language and domain: n/a for this delta (the action item of [RC-067] about the Language and Domain rows is still open)
- Language reviewer: none
- Mode: supervised, not independent (the author, Jens Tirsvad Nielsen, asked in chat on 2026-10-19 for the acceptance and stands in for S01; the AI prepared the evidence)

## Checklist Results

| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Unchanged; the Cost-Benefit Assessment labels its qualitative form. |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | The delivery risk (the check wrongly flags a correct comment, or misses a Danish or Malay one) is a plan risk in PP-001 with a mitigation: a measured corpus before the build, an exception marker and an allowed-words file. |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Criterion 7: "0 after MIL-013" non-English comments reaching the default branch of a repository that calls the check, measured by the check's run on the default branch and a throwaway pull request that cannot be merged. |
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | "A shared workflow that checks that comments in source code are in English and tells the author (MIL-013)" is a new In Scope bullet. Out of Scope is unchanged and does not contradict it: "application code of consuming repositories" stays out because the check only reads comments and reports them, and changes nothing in the consuming repository; "operating the Gitea instance or runners" stays out because branch protection is set by S01 or S03, as the new assumption says. |
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Unchanged; the new assumption names S01 and S03. |
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Unchanged. |
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | The assumption (S03 provides a token that may comment on pull requests; S01 or S03 mark the check required) and the constraint (no source text leaves the instance, the token never appears in a log) are in their own sections. |
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Unchanged: Proceed. |

## Overall Verdict

Go - all eight criteria pass for the revision that adds objective O7, its scope item, assumption, constraint and success criterion 7. The author confirmed the acceptance in chat on 2026-10-19 as stand-in for S01; there is no independent reader and the decision stays open to challenge.

## Action Items

| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The Metadata table of BC-001 has no `Language` and `Domain` rows (QC-LANG-001 criterion 1); this predates this change and is carried over from [RC-067]. Add the rows or record in an ADR why they are not needed | S01 | Before the next material change to BC-001 |

---

[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-business-case.md
[RC-067]: ./rc-067-bc-001-o5.md
[RC-081]: ./rc-081-bc-001-o6.md