018-hirst-painting/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-001-business-case.md

Review Record: Business Case BC-001

Metadata

Key	Value
ID	RC-001
CrossReference	BC-001, SA-001, QC-BC-001, QC-LANG-001

Version History

Date	Status	Author	Reviewer	Change	Commit
2026-10-07	Accepted	Jens Tirsvad Nielsen	S01	Initial version (draft prepared by the assistant for S01 to confirm) Self-review and defaults confirmed by S01	pending

---

Artifact Under Review

• Instance reviewed: BC-001
• Checklist used: QC-BC-001, together with QC-LANG-001 because the Business Case is written in the PO language
• Scope: full review
• Language and domain: en / it (the artifact's Metadata rows)
• Language reviewer: none. S01 reads English and knows the IT domain. S01 is also the author; S01 accepted a documented self-review on 2026-10-07 (Action Item 1)

Status of this record: final. The assistant read the document against every criterion and recorded what it found; S01 confirmed the open points on 2026-10-07 and the verdict is Go.

Checklist Results

#	Criterion	Status	Evidence/Notes
1	ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified	Pass	Cost–Benefit Assessment states it is qualitative "on purpose: this is a learning exercise with no revenue, so a monetary return would be invented", and lists costs and benefits
2	Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation	Pass	Risks table has 6 rows; each has an Impact and a Mitigation
3	Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations	Pass	SC1 to SC7 each have a target and a measure. SC3 (colour threshold 240) and SC6 (30 seconds) were confirmed by S01 on 2026-10-07 (Action Item 3)
4	Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope	Pass	### In Scope and ### Out of Scope subsections, with distinct content
5	Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline	Pass	Stakeholders table cites S01 and says roles are in SA-001. Prose refers to S01 by ID, not by role
6	Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman)	Pass	"Methodological and Standards Foundation" names the plan-first workflow, Larman, ISO/IEC 25010:2023 and qc-programming-python
7	Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another	Pass	Separate ## Assumptions and ## Constraints lists. The one-week timeline is an assumption, confirmed by S01 on 2026-10-07 (Action Item 3)
8	Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation	Pass	Recommendation is a single "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, and neither is a placeholder	Pass	The Language row says en and the Domain row says it; check-languages.sh --list reports both
2	Language is a BCP 47 code and Domain is a value from the registry's domain list	Pass	en is a BCP 47 code; it is in the registry's domain list ("Software and IT")
3	The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language	Pass	All prose and table cells are English; tool names (turtle, colorgram, exitonclick) are established technical terms
4	The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type	Pass	Registry gives IT Executive English for BC. The text states decisions, targets and risks; implementation detail was removed from the risks table during drafting. Tool names stay where an objective needs them
5	Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms	Pass	The project has no Domain Dictionary (DICT), so there is no list to check against; the terms dot, palette, painting, grid and phase are used consistently here and in SA-001. "Spot painting" is the name of the genre; the elements are always "dots". S01 confirmed on 2026-10-07 that a dictionary is not needed (Action Item 2)
6	Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English	Pass	Headings follow the BC reference exactly
7	No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document	Pass	Only docs/business-case.md exists
8	A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again	N-A	First version; there is no previous accepted version
9	A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly	Pass	S01 confirmed on 2026-10-07 that the domain terms are used correctly (Action Item 2). S01 is also the author; the self-review was accepted by S01 (Action Item 1)
10	Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language	Pass	SQA and QC are spelled out in the Executive Summary; ISO/IEC, SC and O numbering are defined where introduced

Overall Verdict

Go — every criterion of QC-BC-001 and of QC-LANG-001 passes (criterion 8 of QC-LANG-001 is N-A for a first version). S01 accepted the documented self-review, confirmed the defaults and the stakeholder list, and confirmed on 2026-10-07 that the domain terms are used correctly and that no Domain Dictionary is needed. All action items are closed.

Action Items

#	Action	Owner	Due
1	Name a reviewer who is not the author, or record here that the review is a documented self-review accepted by S01. Closed 2026-10-07: S01 accepted a documented self-review	S01	2026-10-09
2	Confirm that the domain terms in BC-001 are used correctly (QC-LANG-001 criterion 9), and that a Domain Dictionary is not needed for this project. Closed 2026-10-07: S01 confirmed both points	S01	2026-10-09
3	Confirm or change the defaults in BC-001: one-week timeline from 2026-10-07, colour threshold 240 (SC3), 30-second run time (SC6); say where the reference image is. Closed 2026-10-07 for the defaults: S01 confirmed all three. The reference image location is still open; it is a risk of BC-001 and goes to the Open Issues of the Project Plan	S01	2026-10-09

---