Re-review RC-001 to RC-003 against the framework checklists
Fix the defects found (cost-benefit justification, delivery-time constraint, spelled-out abbreviations) and add review records RC-005 to RC-007 for the Business Case, Stakeholder Analysis and milestone MIL-001, all with verdict Go.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||
# SQA Review Record
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-005 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [BC-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-07 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001] (`qc-business-case.md`) and [QC-LANG-001] (`qc-language-domain.md`)
|
||||
- Scope: full review. It replaces [RC-001], which was written when the checklists were not available in `framework/qc/`. Defects found were fixed first, so the version reviewed is the one with the new Version History row.
|
||||
- Language and domain: en / it
|
||||
- Language reviewer: none (S01 reads English and knows the IT domain)
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or explicitly justified when qualitative | Pass | The first review passed this without a justification. The version under review adds one under the Cost–Benefit table: the only cost is the participant's time and there is no revenue |
|
||||
| 2 | Risks have documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Three risks, each with impact and mitigation |
|
||||
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable | Pass | Four criteria with explicit targets and measures (exit code, 100% tests pass, at least 3 topics) |
|
||||
| 4 | Scope separates In Scope from Out of Scope | Pass | `### In Scope` and `### Out of Scope` |
|
||||
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to SA IDs | Pass | S01, S02, S03 cited by ID from [SA-001] |
|
||||
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated | Pass | The framework process and ISO/IEC 25010:2023 |
|
||||
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and distinct | Pass | Two separate sections; the one-week delivery constraint was added in this review |
|
||||
| 8 | Clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | `Proceed` with a one-sentence rationale |
|
||||
|
||||
## Language and Domain Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | The Metadata table has a `Language` row and a `Domain` row, neither a placeholder | Pass | `Language` is `en` and `Domain` is `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 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 type | Pass | IT Executive English: Plain executive English; no unexplained jargon |
|
||||
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | The project has no dictionary (`DICT`), so there are no PO terms to contradict; terms are used consistently (for example PrettyTable, virtual environment, test) |
|
||||
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Checked in the file |
|
||||
| 7 | No translated twin exists beside the document | Pass | `docs/` has one file per artifact |
|
||||
| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | Pass | Language and domain are unchanged since the first version |
|
||||
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain and the language has confirmed the domain terms | Pass | S01 reads English and works in the IT domain; the language reviewer is `none` |
|
||||
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use | Pass | PyPI, SQA and QC are spelled out on first use (fixed in this review) |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go — every mandatory criterion of the type checklist and of QC-LANG-001 passes. Two defects were fixed before the verdict: the qualitative cost-benefit lacked a justification (criterion 1) and the document had no delivery-time constraint, which the milestone cross-check needs; PyPI, SQA and QC were not spelled out (QC-LANG-001 criterion 10). The author and the reviewer are both S01, the only stakeholder, as in the first reviews.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None open | S01 | n/a |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
||||
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-business-case.md
|
||||
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-language-domain.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||
# SQA Review Record
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-006 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [SA-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-07 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [SA-001]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-SA-001] (`qc-stakeholder-analysis.md`) and [QC-LANG-001] (`qc-language-domain.md`)
|
||||
- Scope: full review. It replaces [RC-002], which was written when the checklists were not available in `framework/qc/`. Defects found were fixed first, so the version reviewed is the one with the new Version History row.
|
||||
- Language and domain: en / it
|
||||
- Language reviewer: none (S01 reads English and knows the IT domain)
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder | Pass | S01, S02, S03 each have Power, Interest and a Quadrant |
|
||||
| 2 | Each stakeholder has a unique, stable ID | Pass | S01 to S03; none renumbered |
|
||||
| 3 | Roles and context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels | Pass | Role/Title, Organization, Power and Interest columns filled |
|
||||
| 4 | Communication needs are mapped to phases or milestones | Pass | Channel, frequency, deliverable and phase for S01, S02 and S03 |
|
||||
| 5 | Conflicting interests are identified with a mitigation | Pass | One conflict (S02 against S03) with a mitigation |
|
||||
| 6 | Concerns are traced to Business Case objectives | Pass | Traceability table cites [BC-001] O1 to O4 |
|
||||
| 7 | Concerns use business language and a FURPS+ mapping | Pass | Each concern maps to a FURPS+ attribute |
|
||||
| 8 | Understandable by non-technical stakeholders | Pass | Short, plain entries per stakeholder |
|
||||
|
||||
## Language and Domain Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | The Metadata table has a `Language` row and a `Domain` row, neither a placeholder | Pass | `Language` is `en` and `Domain` is `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 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 type | Pass | IT Professional English: Professional English; business concerns and FURPS+ labels |
|
||||
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | The project has no dictionary (`DICT`), so there are no PO terms to contradict; terms are used consistently (for example PrettyTable, virtual environment, test) |
|
||||
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Checked in the file |
|
||||
| 7 | No translated twin exists beside the document | Pass | `docs/` has one file per artifact |
|
||||
| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | Pass | Language and domain are unchanged since the first version |
|
||||
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain and the language has confirmed the domain terms | Pass | S01 reads English and works in the IT domain; the language reviewer is `none` |
|
||||
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use | Pass | FURPS+ is spelled out under its section heading (fixed in this review) |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go — every mandatory criterion of the type checklist and of QC-LANG-001 passes. One defect was fixed before the verdict: FURPS+ was not spelled out (QC-LANG-001 criterion 10). The author and the reviewer are both S01, the only stakeholder, as in the first reviews.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None open | S01 | n/a |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[SA-001]: ../../stakeholder-analysis.md
|
||||
[QC-SA-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
|
||||
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-language-domain.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
||||
# SQA Review Record
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-007 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [MIL-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-07 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [MIL-001]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-MIL-001] (`qc-milestones-gateways.md`) and [QC-LANG-001] (`qc-language-domain.md`)
|
||||
- Scope: full review. It replaces [RC-003], which was written when the checklists were not available in `framework/qc/`. Defects found were fixed first, so the version reviewed is the one with the new Version History row.
|
||||
- Language and domain: en / it
|
||||
- Language reviewer: none (S01 reads English and knows the IT domain)
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | A concrete deliverable is defined for every gate | Pass | The project, tests, config and repository metadata, not just a date |
|
||||
| 2 | Explicit, objectively checkable Go/No-Go criteria | Pass | Six criteria, each with a Go and a No-Go condition that a command or page shows |
|
||||
| 3 | Dependencies on other milestones are mapped | Pass | The table lists [BC-001] and [SA-001]; there is no earlier milestone |
|
||||
| 4 | Each milestone is traceable to a Business Case objective or KPI | Pass | Traceability table maps O1 to O4 to tasks |
|
||||
| 5 | Owner and approving reviewer are identified | Pass | Both are S01 |
|
||||
| 6 | Target date is consistent with project constraints | Pass | The first review passed this, but [BC-001] had no delivery-time constraint to check against. [BC-001] now states one week (2026-10-07 to 2026-10-14) and the target date matches |
|
||||
|
||||
## Language and Domain Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | The Metadata table has a `Language` row and a `Domain` row, neither a placeholder | Pass | `Language` is `en` and `Domain` is `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 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 type | Pass | IT Executive English: Plain executive English |
|
||||
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | The project has no dictionary (`DICT`), so there are no PO terms to contradict; terms are used consistently (for example PrettyTable, virtual environment, test) |
|
||||
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Checked in the file |
|
||||
| 7 | No translated twin exists beside the document | Pass | `docs/` has one file per artifact |
|
||||
| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | Pass | Language and domain are unchanged since the first version |
|
||||
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain and the language has confirmed the domain terms | Pass | S01 reads English and works in the IT domain; the language reviewer is `none` |
|
||||
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use | Pass | RC is spelled out as the review record in Go criterion 6 (fixed in this review) |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go — every mandatory criterion of the type checklist and of QC-LANG-001 passes. One defect was fixed before the verdict: the target date had no Business Case constraint to be consistent with (criterion 6), and the review record was cited as `RC` without explanation (QC-LANG-001 criterion 10). The author and the reviewer are both S01, the only stakeholder, as in the first reviews.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None open | S01 | n/a |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[MIL-001]: ../../milestones/mil-001-pretty-table-project.md
|
||||
[QC-MIL-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-milestones-gateways.md
|
||||
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-language-domain.md
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user