018-hirst-painting/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-stakeholder-analysis.md

Review Record: Stakeholder Analysis SA-001

Metadata

Key	Value
ID	RC-002
CrossReference	SA-001, BC-001, QC-SA-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) S02 removed on S01's instruction; self-review confirmed by S01	pending

---

Artifact Under Review

• Instance reviewed: SA-001
• Checklist used: QC-SA-001, together with QC-LANG-001 because the Stakeholder Analysis 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	Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries	Pass	S01, the only stakeholder, is classified HIGH/HIGH, Manage Closely; the quadrant follows the standard grid
2	Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts	Pass	S01, unique; BC-001 and the review records already cite it. S02 was removed on S01's instruction before any review gave Go, so no ID was reused
3	Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description	Pass	Role and Organization columns filled, with explicit levels
4	Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones	Pass	Mapped to the review gates of the workflow, since no milestone document exists yet. The mapping to MIL-* IDs can be added in a later version once they exist
5	Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies	Pass	3 conflicts, each with a mitigation. The reviewer-independence conflict is mitigated by S01's accepted self-review (Action Item 1)
6	Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives	Pass	Business Goal Alignment table traces S01's concerns to O1 to O5 of BC-001; the objective numbers match the Business Case
7	Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+)	Pass	Every concern has a FURPS+ attribute; the acronym is spelled out in the Purpose
8	Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry	Pass	Short, plain table entries; S01 has a single row to read

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 are established technical terms
4	The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type	Pass	Registry gives IT Professional English for SA; the text uses the grid, FURPS+ and RACI terms without over-explaining 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 match BC-001. 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 SA reference exactly
7	No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document	Pass	Only docs/stakeholder-analysis.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	FURPS+ and RACI are spelled out in the Purpose; S01 and BC-001 are IDs defined by the document set

Overall Verdict

Go — every criterion of QC-SA-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 (the same decision as RC-001 Action Item 1). Closed 2026-10-07: S01 accepted a documented self-review	S01	2026-10-09
2	Confirm that the domain terms in SA-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 that S01 and S02 are the only stakeholders, or name others (for example a second reviewer). Closed 2026-10-07: S01 is the only stakeholder; S02 was removed from SA-001 and BC-001	S01	2026-10-09

---