Add SQA review records and plan MIL-004 Code Review and CI

Add RC-001 to RC-005 for the Business Case, Stakeholder Analysis and MIL-001 to MIL-003, checked against their QC checklists, and a traceability matrix. The reviews found a missing duration constraint in the Business Case; BC-001 v2 adds it, and SA-001 v2 records the sign-off. Register RC and TM in the artifact registry. Plan MIL-004 (review the source against QC-PY-001, add a CI workflow) as Proposed, with Business Case objective 6, a Project Plan gateway row and a matrix entry. The milestone is not yet synced to the git host. No issue closed: planning and review documents only, no code changed.
2026-10-06 20:42:51 +08:00
parent 1403dacf0e
commit 8ef00aafaa
11 changed files with 419 additions and 49 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# RC-002 Stakeholder Analysis Review
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-002 |
+| CrossReference | [SA-001], [QC-SA-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: [SA-001] (docs/stakeholder-analysis.md)
+- Checklist used: [QC-SA-001] (`QC-SA-001`)
+- Independence: S01 is the only stakeholder and is also the recorded author, so the reviewer-is-not-author rule cannot be met. The documents were drafted 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.
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries | Pass | S01 to S03 each have power, interest and quadrant. |
+| 2 | Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts | Pass | IDs S01 to S03 are used by every other document. |
+| 3 | Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description | Pass | Levels are stated as High/Low in the table, with organisation and role. |
+| 4 | Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones | Pass | Communication table maps each stakeholder to MIL-001 to MIL-003. |
+| 5 | Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies | Pass | One conflict (assignment names vs testable structure) with a mitigation. |
+| 6 | Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives | Pass | Traceability table maps each stakeholder to [BC-001] objectives. |
+| 7 | Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+) | Pass | Each concern has a FURPS+ attribute. |
+| 8 | Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry | Pass | Plain language, short; each stakeholder can find their own row. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — all criteria pass. The Sign-Off row said `Pending review` and was updated to the Go in SA-001 v2.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Record the sign-off in SA-001 (done in v2) | S01 | 2026-10-06 |
+
+---
+
+[SA-001]: ../../stakeholder-analysis.md
+[QC-SA-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-stakeholder-analysis.md