Re-review the Business Case and accept v4

Add RC-008 for the Business Case after v3 added objective 6. Two defects found: objective 6 had no success criterion, and the Python version was worded differently in the assumption and the constraint. BC-001 v4 fixes both and is accepted; v3 is deprecated. The traceability matrix now points to RC-008. No issue closed: review and documentation only, no code changed.
2026-10-06 21:44:11 +08:00
parent 71a27ddc1f
commit 861edbfa92
1 changed files with 51 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# RC-008 Business Case v3 Review
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-008 |
+| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-06 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [BC-001] (docs/business-case.md, version 3 as reviewed; version 4 after the actions below)
+- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001] (`QC-BC-001`)
+- Independence: S01 is the only stakeholder and is also the recorded author, so the reviewer-is-not-author rule cannot be met. The document was written by Claude on S01's behalf; S01 reviews and signs. This is a known limit of a one-person project, not a clean independent review.
+- This record re-reviews the Business Case after version 3 added objective 6 and scope for code review and CI. It follows [RC-001], which reviewed version 2.
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost-Benefit table is explicitly qualitative and says why. |
+| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Three risks, each with impact and mitigation. No new risk comes from objective 6. |
+| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Fixed in v4: objective 6 (review and CI) had no success criterion. Criterion 6 now has a target and a measure; criteria 1 to 6 are all measurable. |
+| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | `### In Scope` and `### Out of Scope` are separate; v3 added the review and CI line to In Scope and nothing contradicts Out of Scope. |
+| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01 to S03 only. |
+| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Methodology section names the framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023 and the coding conventions. |
+| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Fixed in v4: the Assumption said "3.13 or newer" but the Constraint said "greater than 3.13". The Constraint now states the reading (`>=3.13`). The duration constraint added after RC-001 is still present. |
+| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation is a single "Proceed" with a reason. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — all mandatory criteria pass. Two defects were found in version 3 (no success criterion for objective 6; conflicting wording of the Python version) and fixed in the same change as BC-001 v4.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Add success criterion 6 for objective 6 (done in v4) | S01 | 2026-10-06 |
+| State the Python version reading in the constraint (done in v4) | S01 | 2026-10-06 |
+
+---
+
+[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
+[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-business-case.md
+[RC-001]: ./rc-001-business-case.md