015-coffee-machine/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-008-business-case-v3.md

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	861edbf

---

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

---