4.3 KiB
4.3 KiB
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 | cd85bb4 |
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 |