5.2 KiB
5.2 KiB
Review of BC-001
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-001 |
| CrossReference | BC-001, QC-BC-001, QC-LANG-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-13 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S01 | Initial version | 93d8321 |
Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: BC-001
- Checklist used: QC-BC-001
- Also applied: QC-LANG-001
- Scope: full review
- Language and domain: en / it
- Language reviewer: none
- Mode: autonomous, not independent (reviewer is
AI as stand-in for S01; the author is S01)
Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified (Mandatory) | Pass | Cost-Benefit table is qualitative and the text says why: a learning exercise with no budget. |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation (Mandatory) | Pass | Risks table has five rows, each with an impact and a mitigation. |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations (Mandatory) | Pass | Success Criteria table has seven rows, each with a target and a measure (pytest exit code, zero dependencies, file listing). |
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope (Mandatory) | Pass | Scope has separate In Scope and Out of Scope subsections. |
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline (Mandatory) | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 with their SA-001 IDs; roles are not re-described. |
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) (Optional) | Pass | Methodological and Standards Foundation names object-oriented design, ISO/IEC 25010:2023, Doxygen and the framework. |
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another (Mandatory) | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate lists; the two-week plan assumption was moved from Constraints to Assumptions during this review. |
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation (Mandatory) | Pass | Recommendation is a single statement: Proceed. |
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 (Mandatory) |
Pass | Metadata has Language = en and Domain = it, neither a placeholder. |
| 2 | Language is a BCP 47 code and Domain is a value from the registry's domain list (Mandatory) |
Pass | en is a BCP 47 code; it is in the registry domain list. |
| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language (Mandatory) | Pass | All prose and table cells are English, the stated language. Code names stay as written. |
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type (Mandatory) | Pass | IT Executive English register: short sentences, decisions and outcomes first; implementation names appear only where a task needs them. |
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms (Mandatory) | Pass | No domain dictionary (DICT) exists in this project. Terms (car, player, level, finish line, milestone) are used with one word each, matching the assignment. Recorded as a stand-in decision. |
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English (Mandatory) | Pass | Keys, headings, IDs and statuses are English. |
| 7 | No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document (Mandatory) |
Pass | No translated twin exists beside the document. |
| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again (Mandatory) | Pass | First version; no language change since the previous accepted version. |
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly (Mandatory) | Pass | The reviewer reads English and knows the IT domain; stand-in for S01 (who is the PO and developer). No separate language reviewer. Open to challenge by S01. |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language (Optional) | Pass | Abbreviations (SQA, QC, CI, RC, API, FURPS+) are spelled out on first use; stakeholder and document IDs are defined in SA-001. |
Overall Verdict
Go - every Mandatory criterion of QC-BC-001 and QC-LANG-001 passes. The review is not independent: author and reviewer are the same person, with the AI standing in for S01.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| Challenge this review in the end-of-run summary if the stand-in decisions on QC-LANG-001 criteria 5 and 9 are not accepted | S01 | 2026-10-27 |