021-snake-game/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-stakeholder-analysis.md

RC-002: Review of SA-001

Metadata

Key	Value
ID	RC-002
CrossReference	SA-001, QC-SA-001, QC-LANG-001, BC-001, DICT-001, PP-001

Version History

Date	Status	Author	Reviewer	Change	Commit
2026-10-08	Proposed	Jens Tirsvad Nielsen	S01	Initial version	f13d004

---

Artifact Under Review

• Instance reviewed: SA-001
• Checklist used: QC-SA-001 and, for the language and domain, QC-LANG-001
• Scope: full review
• Language and domain: en / it
• Language reviewer: none (S01 reads English and knows the IT domain)

Checklist Results

#	Criterion	Status	Evidence/Notes
1	Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries	Pass	S01, S02 and S03 each have a Power Level, an Interest Level and a Quadrant.
2	Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts	Pass	S01 to S03; the milestones and review records use them as owner and reviewer.
3	Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description	Pass	Role, Organization, Power and Interest are table columns. The levels of S02 and S03 were not stated by the Product Owner; the Purpose says they are proposals, and the Project Plan lists them as an open issue.
4	Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones	Pass	Communication Requirements table maps S01, S02 and S03 to channel, frequency, deliverable and the milestones MIL-001 and MIL-003.
5	Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies	Pass	Three conflicts, each with a mitigation (lecture style against structure; nothing to install against pytest and Doxygen; author equals reviewer).
6	Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives	Pass	Business Goal Alignment table; the objective numbers (1, 2 to 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) were checked against the ten objectives of BC-001 and match.
7	Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+)	Pass	The concern column of the summary table is in business language and the FURPS+ table maps eight concerns to an attribute.
8	Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry	Pass	Each stakeholder has one row and one rationale bullet in plain language; abbreviations are spelled out.

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	Language is en and Domain is it in the Metadata table.
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; check-languages.sh --list shows en and it for this document.
3	The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language	Pass	All prose and table cells are English. Titles of lectures are quoted in English.
4	The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type	Pass	Register is IT Professional English: plain sentences, abbreviations spelled out, identifiers in backticks only in the concern table.
5	Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms	Pass	Terms are those of DICT-001 (game, snake, food, score, wall, tail, game over, arrow keys). The synonym search of the Business Case review was repeated on this document: only 'step' (project step) was found.
6	Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English	Pass	Keys, headings, IDs and statuses are English.
7	No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document	Pass	docs/ holds one file per artifact; there is no <name>.<language>.md.
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 earlier accepted version.
9	A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly	Pass	S01 (Product Owner and developer) reads English and knows the IT domain, and asked for this review in chat on 2026-10-08. The terms were also checked against DICT-001 by the reviewing assistant; S01's own reading is an action item below.
10	Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language	Pass	Quality Criteria (QC), RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) and FURPS+ are spelled out on first use.

Overall Verdict

Go — all Mandatory criteria pass. The checklist rows above were transcribed and assessed on 2026-10-08 by the assistant that drafted the documents, at S01's request in chat ("review them and start MIL-001"). S01 is named as reviewer and approves. This review is not independent: the drafter and the reviewer are the same assistant, and author and reviewer (S01) are one person in a single-person project (risk recorded in BC-001 and PP-001). S01 has not yet read the document line by line and can overrule this verdict at the pull request.

Action Items

Action	Owner	Due
Read SA-001 and confirm or overrule this Go; confirm the proposed Power and Interest levels of S02 and S03	S01	2026-10-09
Decide whether to create the governance document (GOV) and the traceability matrix (TM); no TM row could be added for this review because neither exists (open issue in PP-001)	S01	2026-10-09

---