51 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
# 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 | Deprecated | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S05 | S05 review approved (reported by S01)<br>Independence action item closed | [ba1c6be] |
|
||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S05 | S01 stood in for S05<br>Independence of the review is still open | [0799b43] |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 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); S01 stood in for S05 on 2026-10-10; this is not an independent review because the author and S01 are the same person.
|
||
|
||
## 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
|
||
[ba1c6be]: https://git.tirsystem.com/TirSystem/github-action/commit/ba1c6bea7491884899d55a3f86364c6a7811649a
|
||
[0799b43]: https://git.tirsystem.com/TirSystem/github-action/commit/0799b43888a1fef02fe135818a4a38eff3452a09
|