4.4 KiB
4.4 KiB
Review of BC-001
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-001 |
| CrossReference | BC-001, QC-BC-001, QC-LANG-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-28 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 (AI as stand-in, autonomous mode) | Initial version | dcef5e6 |
Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: BC-001
- Checklist used: QC-BC-001
- Scope: full review
- Language and domain: en / it
- Language reviewer: none (stand-in S01 reads the language and knows the domain)
- Mode: autonomous, not independent (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 states why (learning project, no revenue). |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | six risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | six success criteria with numeric or checkable targets and a measure. |
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | In Scope and Out of Scope subsections exist. |
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02, S03 only. |
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | foundation names the framework, Larman, ISO/IEC 25010:2023. |
| 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 is "Proceed" with one sentence. |
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 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 | Whole content is English. |
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | IT Executive English for BC and PP, IT Professional English for SA and MIL, per the registry; MIL/BC/PP keep short, decision-oriented sentences. |
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | No DICT exists; terms are standard IT terms (scraping, fixture, workflow). No synonyms found for them. |
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Keys, headings, IDs and statuses are English. |
| 7 | No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document |
Pass | No *.en.md or other twin exists in docs/. |
| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | Pass | First version in this language; no change since an accepted version. |
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | Stand-in for S01 (Product Owner, developer) confirms the IT terms; not independent (autonomous mode). |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations (PO, SA, MIL, CI, BC) are defined in the framework and used consistently; PO is spelled out in the SA. |
Overall Verdict
Go — no Mandatory criterion fails and none is Pending. The review is a stand-in review by the author's tool for S01 in autonomous mode and is not independent; S01 challenges it in the run summary.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| None | S01 | 2026-10-28 |