Files
040-personal-flight-club/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-stakeholder-analysis.md
2026-10-24 23:35:34 +08:00

4.4 KiB

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
2026-10-24 Accepted Jens Tirsvad Nielsen AI as stand-in for S01 Initial version c5a6ed5

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 stand-in reads the language and knows the domain)
  • Mode: autonomous, not independent (the reviewer is 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 Power, Interest and Quadrant filled for S01 to S03.
2 Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts Pass Stable IDs S01, S02, S03.
3 Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description Pass Roles, organisations and explicit levels given.
4 Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones Pass Communication table ties each stakeholder to a milestone.
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 Traceability table maps concerns to [BC-001] objectives.
7 Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+) Pass Concerns are in business language with a FURPS+ attribute.
8 Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry Pass Short, plain tables; each stakeholder can find their entry.

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 rows are in Metadata.
2 Language is a BCP 47 code and Domain is a value from the registry's domain list Pass en is BCP 47; 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 are English.
4 The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type Pass Register matches the registry row for this type.
5 Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms Pass The project has no domain dictionary (DICT); the document uses standard IT terms consistently, with no synonyms. Stand-in judgement.
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 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 the stand-in for S01 (Product Owner, IT domain). Mode: autonomous, not independent.
10 Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language Fail Optional: SMTP, API, CI and similar abbreviations are not all spelled out on first use. Action item below.

Overall Verdict

Go — all mandatory criteria pass; the one failed criterion is optional (QC-LANG-001 criterion 10) and has an action item.

Action Items

Action Owner Due
Spell out the abbreviations (SMTP, API, CI, IATA) on first use in the README glossary S01 2026-11-07