# SQA Review Record

## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-002 |
| CrossReference | [SA-001], [QC-SA-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 | [b113e6e] |

---

## Artifact Under Review

- Instance reviewed: [SA-001]
- Checklist used: [QC-SA-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 | Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries | Pass | S01, S02, S03 each have power, interest and quadrant. |
| 2 | Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts | Pass | S01, S02, S03; used by the Business Case, plan and milestones. |
| 3 | Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description | Pass | Role, organisation, power and interest in the summary table. |
| 4 | Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones | Pass | Communication table names milestone for each stakeholder. |
| 5 | Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies | Pass | Two conflicts, each with a mitigation. |
| 6 | Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives | Pass | Business Goal Alignment table cites [BC-001] objectives. |
| 7 | Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+) | Pass | Concerns table with FURPS+ attribute. |
| 8 | Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry | Pass | One table row per stakeholder, plain wording. |

## 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 Professional English: concrete technical terms and checkable statements. |
| 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 | The only abbreviations are stakeholder IDs (S01 and so on), defined by the summary table, and FURPS+ (functionality, usability, reliability, performance, supportability plus), named in the method of the Purpose. |

## Overall Verdict

Go - The Stakeholder Analysis meets its checklist. Every Mandatory criterion of both checklists passes.

## Action Items

| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | S01 | |

---

[SA-001]: ../../stakeholder-analysis.md
[QC-SA-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-language-domain.md
[b113e6e]: https://git.tirsystem.com/Tirsvad-Udemy-100-days-of-code/025-us-states-game/commit/b113e6eacd12bb08045ecf6f7822837626a7b1f7