TirsvadandClaude Sonnet 5.5
28ec0e85d8
Replace `pending` in the Version History of the planning documents and
review records with the link to commit c24f412, and add the framework
gitlink that was missing from that commit.
Refs #1
Refs #2
Refs #3
Refs #4
Refs #5
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
4.1 KiB
4.1 KiB
Review: Stakeholder Analysis SA-001
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-002 |
| CrossReference | SA-001, QC-SA-001, QC-LANG-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-07 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Review record | c24f412 |
Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: SA-001
- Checklist used: QC-SA-001
- Scope: full review
- Language and domain: en / it
- Language reviewer: none
Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries | Pass | S01-S03 all have power, interest and quadrant. Levels for S02 and S03 are the drafter's classification, not given in the brief; S01 accepts them. |
| 2 | Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID | Pass | S01, S02, S03. |
| 3 | Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description | Pass | Role, organization, HIGH/LOW levels in the table. |
| 4 | Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones | Pass | Communication table maps to MIL-001 to MIL-003. |
| 5 | Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies | Pass | One conflict (assignment names versus Python style) with a mitigation. |
| 6 | Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives | Pass | Business Goal Alignment table cites BC-001 objectives 1-4. |
| 7 | Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+) | Pass | FURPS+ mapping table. |
| 8 | Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry | Pass | Plain table, one row per stakeholder. |
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 |
| 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 Professional 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 criteria pass.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| Confirm the Power/Interest levels of S02 and S03 | S01 | 2026-10-09 |