69 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
69 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
# RC-001: Review of BC-001
|
||
|
||
## Metadata
|
||
| Key | Value |
|
||
| --- | --- |
|
||
| ID | RC-001 |
|
||
| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001], [QC-LANG-001], [DICT-001] |
|
||
|
||
## Version History
|
||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||
| 2026-10-13 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||
|
||
- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
|
||
- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001] and, for the language and domain, [QC-LANG-001]
|
||
- Scope: full review
|
||
- Language and domain: en / it
|
||
- Language reviewer: none (the reviewer reads English and knows the IT domain)
|
||
- Mode: autonomous, not independent (the reviewer is `AI as stand-in for S01`; the assistant also drafted the document)
|
||
|
||
## Checklist Results
|
||
|
||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||
| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost–Benefit Assessment is qualitative and says why: an unpaid learning project with one participant, so money measures neither side. |
|
||
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Risks table has 11 rows, each with an Impact and a Mitigation. |
|
||
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Success Criteria has 13 rows with a Target and a Measure; the targets are observable (text strings, file content, exit codes, counts). |
|
||
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | `### In Scope` and `### Out of Scope` are separate subsections; the out-of-scope list names the mail-merge project, file paths and the PyPI. |
|
||
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 and states interests only, with objective numbers. |
|
||
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Methodological and Standards Foundation names the framework, Larman, ISO/IEC 25010:2023, PEP 8/257/484, Doxygen and pytest. |
|
||
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate lists; the autonomous-mode note and the plan window are in Constraints. |
|
||
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation: "Proceed — ...", one sentence. |
|
||
|
||
## 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 Metadata. |
|
||
| 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. |
|
||
| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language | Pass | All prose and table cells of BC-001 are English. |
|
||
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Register is the one the registry gives for the type; code names and commands appear in backticks only where a check needs them. |
|
||
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | Terms are those of [DICT-001]: score, high score, reset, continuous play, data file, scoreboard, snake, segment, head, tail, food; `game over` appears only for the base's behaviour and as the removed `game_over` identifier, as the dictionary's rules allow. |
|
||
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Metadata 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 of the document: 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 | The assistant, as stand-in for S01, reads English and knows the IT domain and checked the terms against [DICT-001]; the objectives use the lectures' words. |
|
||
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations (SQA, QC, PEP, CI, API, PyPI, FURPS+, RACI, ISO/IEC) are spelled out or defined on first use, or are standard names. |
|
||
|
||
## Overall Verdict
|
||
|
||
Go — all Mandatory criteria pass or are not applicable. The rows above were assessed on 2026-10-13 by the assistant that drafted the document, as stand-in for S01 in autonomous mode (chosen by S01 in chat on 2026-10-13). Mode: autonomous, not independent. This review is **not independent**: the drafter and the reviewer are the same assistant, and author and approver (S01) are one person in a single-participant project. S01 accepted the plan in chat on 2026-10-13; the verdict can be challenged in the run summary or on the pull request.
|
||
|
||
## Action Items
|
||
|
||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||
| Challenge this `Go` in the run summary or on the pull request if the stand-in decision is not wanted | S01 | 2026-10-15 |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
||
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-business-case.md
|
||
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-language-domain.md
|
||
[DICT-001]: ../../dictionary.md
|