69 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
69 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
# 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 |
|
||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||
| 2026-10-24 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S01 | Initial version | [e8d24b2] |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 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 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 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost–Benefit table is qualitative and says why: "qualitative, as this is a learning project". |
|
||
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Four risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
|
||
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Six success criteria with targets and measures. |
|
||
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | Scope has separate In Scope and Out of Scope subsections. |
|
||
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 only. |
|
||
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Foundation section names the framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023 and HTML5. |
|
||
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate lists. |
|
||
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation says "Proceed" with one 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 | The Language row is en and the Domain row is it. |
|
||
| 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; checked by the stand-in reviewer. |
|
||
| 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 | No dictionary (DICT) exists; the text uses plain IT vocabulary with no synonym pairs. |
|
||
| 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 `<name>.<language>.md` twin exists. |
|
||
| 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; no earlier accepted language to compare. |
|
||
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | The stand-in reviewer reads English and knows the IT domain; mode is autonomous, not independent. |
|
||
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | ISO/IEC, SQA, QC and HTML are the only abbreviations and are standard IT terms. |
|
||
|
||
## Overall Verdict
|
||
|
||
Go — every applicable criterion passes. The review is a stand-in review, not an independent one, and S01 can challenge it in the final summary.
|
||
|
||
## Action Items
|
||
|
||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||
| None | S01 | n/a |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
||
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-business-case.md
|
||
[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-language-domain.md
|
||
[e8d24b2]: https://git.tirsystem.com/Tirsvad-Udemy-100-days-of-code/041-web-movie-ranking/commit/e8d24b2d32ce1ef8276123b0efa05b8a15e27d52
|