Add plan baseline: business case, stakeholders, project plan, four milestones, reviews

Refs: plan accepted by S01 in chat (autonomous mode)
2026-10-13 15:40:07 +08:00
parent 79812cb44f
commit b113e6eacd
16 changed files with 1040 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# SQA Review Record
+
+## Metadata
+| Key | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| ID | RC-001 |
+| CrossReference | [BC-001], [QC-BC-001] |
+
+## Version History
+| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 2026-10-13 | Proposed | Claude (AI) for S01 | AI as stand-in for S01 | Initial review record: Go | pending |
+
+---
+
+## Artifact Under Review
+
+- Instance reviewed: [BC-001]
+- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001] and [QC-LANG-001]
+- Scope: full review
+- Language and domain: en / it
+- Language reviewer: none (the reviewer reads English and knows the domain, as stand-in for S01)
+- Mode: autonomous, not independent (the reviewer is `AI as stand-in for S01`; the author is the same AI)
+
+## Checklist Results
+
+| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost-Benefit table is qualitative and says why: the project is an exercise with no licence or hosting cost. |
+| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Risks table: five risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
+| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Six criteria with target and measure (pytest exit code 0, `check-readme.sh` passes, at least 5 topics). |
+| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | `### In Scope` and `### Out of Scope` subsections. |
+| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02, S03 and [SA-001]. |
+| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Section names the framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023 and the coding conventions. |
+| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Separate Assumptions and Constraints sections. |
+| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation: Proceed, with 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 | `Language` = en, `Domain` = it in Metadata. |
+| 2 | `Language` is a BCP 47 code and `Domain` is a value from the registry's domain list | Pass | `en`; `it` is in the registry's domain table. |
+| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language | Pass | All prose and cells are English. Checked by the stand-in for S01, who reads English. |
+| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | IT Executive English: plain objective-level prose with no implementation detail beyond what the scope needs. |
+| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | No `DICT` exists for domain `it` and none is in the plan; the document uses standard Python and software terms consistently (for example `states_to_learn.csv`, `missing_states`, Doxygen). Recorded as a stand-in decision. |
+| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | All structural vocabulary is English. |
+| 7 | No translated twin (`<name>.<language>.md`) exists beside the document | Pass | `check-languages.sh` reports no twin. |
+| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | Pass | First version; 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 reviewer, AI as stand-in for S01, reads English and the software domain; no second language reviewer is named. S01 is the Product Owner and reads both; a person may challenge this in the run summary. |
+| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Continuous integration (CI), Architecture Decision Record (ADR) and comma-separated values (CSV) are spelled out where first used in prose; file names and tool names are not abbreviations. |
+
+## Overall Verdict
+
+Go - The Business Case is complete against its checklist. Every Mandatory criterion of both checklists passes.
+
+## Action Items
+
+| Action | Owner | Due |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| None | S01 | |
+
+---
+
+[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