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

Review Record: Business Case

Metadata

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

Version History

Date	Status	Author	Reviewer	Change	Commit
2026-10-07	Proposed	Jens Tirsvad Nielsen	S01	Initial version	4b3391b

---

Artifact Under Review

• Instance reviewed: BC-001
• Checklist used: QC-BC-001 (QC-BC-001, Business Case), together with QC-LANG-001 because the type is written in the PO language
• Scope: full review
• Language and domain: en / it (the artifact's Metadata rows)
• Language reviewer: none (not confirmed at the time of this review; S01 confirmed it in RC-008)
• Status of this record: closed on 2026-10-07. The statuses and evidence are the assistant's assessment of the first version of the document; the criteria that failed were re-reviewed in RC-008, which ends in Go.

Checklist Results

#	Criterion	Status	Evidence/Notes
1	ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified	Pass	The Cost–Benefit Assessment states that it is qualitative and why: no revenue, licence or hosting cost, so a monetary return would be invented. The only cost is S01's time, which is not estimated in hours.
2	Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation	Pass	Six risks, each with an Impact and a Mitigation; none without a mitigation. Impact is described, not rated.
3	Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations	Pass	Seven success criteria, each with a Target and a Measure that is a number or a command (for example criterion 2: 0 failures, python -m pytest exits 0).
4	Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope	Pass	### In Scope and ### Out of Scope under ## Scope.
5	Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline	Pass	The Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 and states interests, not roles; the Executive Summary cites SA-001. The Assumptions line "S01 is the only contributor and is the reviewer" states a project fact by ID, which is acceptable.
6	Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman)	Pass	Optional. Methodological and Standards Foundation names the framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023, PEP 8, PEP 257, PEP 484 and Doxygen.
7	Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another	Pass	Assumptions (four items) and Constraints (nine items) are separate lists. The deadline 2026-10-21 is a constraint, which the milestones trace to.
8	Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation	Pass	## Recommendation: "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	Metadata has a Language row (en) and a Domain row (it); neither is a placeholder.
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 domain list of docs/artifact-registry.md.
3	The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language	Pass	All prose and table cells are English. The author wrote it in English; the reviewer confirms by reading it.
4	The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type	Pass	The registry gives this type IT Executive English. Plain sentences for a decision maker. Tool names (pytest, ruff, mypy, Doxygen) appear in Scope and Constraints because the brief fixes them; this is a judgement call for the reviewer.
5	Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms	Fail	No Domain Dictionary exists (docs/dictionary.md is absent), so the domain terms cannot be checked against one. N-A is not allowed for this criterion.
6	Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English	Pass	Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are English and unchanged from the template.
7	No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document	Pass	One file per artifact: find docs -name '*.*.md' finds no translated twin.
8	A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again	N-A	Initial version: there is no earlier accepted version whose language could have changed.
9	A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly	Fail	Not yet confirmed. No record shows that the reviewer reads English and knows the IT domain (there is no reviewer training record, TRR). S01 confirms on this record or names a language reviewer. N-A is not allowed for this criterion.
10	Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language	Fail	Optional. Not spelled out on first use: API, ISO/IEC, PEP, README, RGB, SQA.

Overall Verdict

Go-with-conditions — the criteria of the type's checklist pass, and the language checklist fails criteria 5 and 9 (and 10 where listed), which the review process turns into conditions. The conditions were closed and re-reviewed in RC-008, which ends in Go and covers the whole artifact.

Action Items

Action	Owner	Due
Condition: accept or change the reviewer assignment. S01 is the author of this artifact and also its reviewer, which framework/process/review-checklist-process.md does not allow. Either record the deviation as accepted (this is a single-person project) or name another reviewer.	S01	2026-10-09
Condition (language criterion 5): decide how the domain terms are checked: draft DICT-001 (docs/dictionary.md) with the terms the documents use and review it against QC-DICT-001, or record an accepted deviation.	S01	2026-10-09
Condition (language criterion 9): confirm on this record that the reviewer reads English and knows the IT domain, or name a language reviewer.	S01	2026-10-09
Optional (language criterion 10): spell out on first use: API, ISO/IEC, PEP, README, RGB, SQA.	S01	2026-10-09

---