5.4 KiB
5.4 KiB
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 | 165e91a |
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 | The Cost-Benefit section states that the assessment is qualitative on purpose (unpaid learning project, one participant), which is the explicit justification. |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | The Risks table has 9 risks, each with an impact and a mitigation. |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | 13 success criteria, each with a target and a measure (values such as [12, 14, 15, 14, 21, 22, 24], 17.428..., 24, 53.6; exit codes; 0 warnings). |
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | ### In Scope and ### Out of Scope are separate sections. |
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | The Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 of [SA-001] and describes only their interest in the project. |
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | The Methodological and Standards Foundation names the SQA/QC framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023, PEP 8, 257 and 484, and the dictionary. |
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate sections. |
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | The Recommendation reads Proceed with a one-sentence 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 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 | The register is the one the registry gives for the type; code names 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 (CSV file, row, column, table, temperature, average, select, export); no synonym row exists. |
| 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. |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations (CSV, 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 |