4.6 KiB
4.6 KiB
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 | pending |
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 |