4.2 KiB
4.2 KiB
SQA Review Record
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-001 |
| CrossReference | BC-001, QC-BC-001, QC-LANG-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-17 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: BC-001
- Checklist used: QC-BC-001
- Scope: full review
- Language and domain: en / it
- Language reviewer: none (the reviewer is the stand-in for S01, who reads English and knows the IT domain)
- Mode: autonomous, not independent (reviewer: AI as stand-in for S01)
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 justified: "the project has no revenue". |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Risks table has five rows, each with impact and mitigation. |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Success Criteria table has five criteria with targets (e.g. "100 % of pytest tests pass offline", "0 third-party packages"). |
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | ### In Scope and ### Out of Scope are separate subsections. |
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 from SA-001. |
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Foundation names the framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023, the coding conventions and Doxygen. |
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate bullet lists. |
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation is "Proceed" with a 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 and Domain = it are in the Metadata table. |
| 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 domain list. |
| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language | Pass | All prose and table cells of the Business Case are English. |
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Register is IT Executive English, as the registry gives for this type. |
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | No domain dictionary (DICT) exists yet; the terms used are standard IT terms (repository, pull request, milestone) with no synonyms. Confirmed by the stand-in, not independent. |
| 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 | No *.en.md or other translated twin exists. |
| 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 language change. |
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | Confirmed by AI as stand-in for S01 (English, IT domain). Mode is autonomous, not independent. |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations used (SMTP, STARTTLS, CSV, PO) are spelled out or standard; SMTP is explained in the scope. |
Overall Verdict
Go - All eight criteria pass.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| None | S01 | - |