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.

docs/sqa/reviews/rc-005-business-case.md

@@ -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