025-us-states-game/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-001-business-case.md

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

---