4.4 KiB
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 | e8d24b2 |
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 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 | S01 to S03 have power and interest levels and a 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, S02, S03 are unique and used by the other documents. |
| 3 | Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description | Pass | Role, organisation, power and interest are explicit per row. |
| 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, each with a mitigation. |
| 6 | Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives | Pass | Traceability table maps each stakeholder 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 and mapped to FURPS+. |
| 8 | Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry | Pass | Short, plain tables a stakeholder can check for their own row. |
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 |