# 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