Plan project and set up Phase 1 skeleton

Add the framework submodule and the accepted planning documents:
Business Case, Stakeholder Analysis, Project Plan, three milestones,
review records RC-001 to RC-006 and the traceability matrix.

Set up the project skeleton for MIL-001: pyproject.toml (Python
>=3.13, no runtime dependencies, pytest/ruff/mypy as dev extra),
 src/coffee_machine/constants.py, a constants consistency test,
 Doxyfile and a CI workflow that runs ruff, mypy and pytest.

Task: MIL-001#1
Task: MIL-001#2
Task: MIL-001#3
Task: MIL-001#4
Task: MIL-001#5
Closes #1
Closes #2
Closes #3
Closes #4
Closes #5

docs/sqa/reviews/rc-001-business-case.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Review: Business Case BC-001
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-001 |
+| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001], [QC-LANG-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-07 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Review record | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001]
+- Scope: full review
+- Language and domain: en / it
+- Language reviewer: none
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost-Benefit Assessment now states it is qualitative because there is no revenue or budget to quantify (fixed during this review). |
+| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Three risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
+| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Five criteria with targets and measures (pytest exit code 0, 0 dependencies, 3+ topics). |
+| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | `### In Scope` and `### Out of Scope` present. |
+| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table uses S01, S02, S03 only. |
+| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | ISO/IEC 25010:2023, the framework and the Python checklist are named. |
+| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Separate sections; a target completion date was added to Constraints during this review. |
+| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | "Proceed" with a one-sentence rationale. |
+
+## Language and Domain Results
+
+Checklist: [QC-LANG-001].
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | The Metadata table has a `Language` row and a `Domain` row, and neither is a placeholder | Pass | `Language | en`, `Domain | it`. |
+| 2 | `Language` is a BCP 47 code and `Domain` is a value from the registry's domain list | Pass | `en` is BCP 47; `it` is in the registry's domain list. |
+| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language | Pass | All prose and table cells are English. |
+| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Register is IT Executive English as the registry states. |
+| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | No dictionary (`DICT`) exists yet; terms (Menu, CoffeeMaker, MoneyMachine, drink, resource) are the assignment's own and used consistently. |
+| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Verified by reading the file. |
+| 7 | No translated twin (`<name>.<language>.md`) exists beside the document | Pass | No twin file in `docs/`. |
+| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | N-A | First accepted version; no language change. |
+| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | S01 reads English and works in the IT domain; S01 asked for this review and acceptance in chat. |
+| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | PO, FURPS+, CI, PP, MIL are defined by the framework; PO is spelled out in the Stakeholder Analysis. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go — all mandatory criteria pass. One defect (unjustified qualitative cost-benefit) and one gap (no schedule constraint for the milestones to check against) were fixed during the review.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Confirm the target date 2026-10-16 | S01 | 2026-10-09 |
+
+---
+
+[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
+[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-business-case.md
+[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-language-domain.md