032-birthday-wisher/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-stakeholder-analysis.md

SQA Review Record

Metadata

Key	Value
ID	RC-002
CrossReference	SA-001, QC-SA-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: SA-001
• Checklist used: QC-SA-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	Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries	Pass	S01, S02 and 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	IDs S01 to S03 are unique and used in the Business Case, milestones and plan.
3	Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description	Pass	Role, organisation and HIGH/LOW levels are given, with a rationale per quadrant.
4	Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones	Pass	Communication table maps channel, frequency and deliverable to milestones.
5	Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies	Pass	Two conflicts (pandas vs no dependencies; secret vs public repository) with mitigations.
6	Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives	Pass	Traceability section maps each stakeholder to objectives of BC-001.
7	Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+)	Pass	Concerns table maps each concern to a FURPS+ attribute.
8	Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry	Pass	Plain language, one table per topic.

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 Stakeholder Analysis are English.
4	The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type	Pass	Register is IT Professional 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. S01 is the only reviewer and was named by the user as reviewer.

Action Items

Action	Owner	Due
None	S01	-

---