68 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
68 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
# 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 |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
||
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-business-case.md
|
||
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-language-domain.md
|
||
[cd85bb4]: https://git.tirsystem.com/Tirsvad-Udemy-100_days_of_code/016-pretty_table/commit/cd85bb42593077fc462fae258e9336f4ddd34985
|