5.8 KiB
5.8 KiB
Review of PP-001
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-003 |
| CrossReference | PP-001, QC-PP-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: PP-001
- Checklist used: QC-PP-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 | The plan states its start date, end date and the constraint it must fit | Pass | start 2026-10-28, end 2026-11-14; the Business Case constraint is no hard deadline plus the technical constraints, quoted in Assumptions. |
| 2 | Every milestone or gateway is listed once with its document, decision date and owner | Pass | five gateways, each once, with document, decision date and owner S01. |
| 3 | Every decision date lies inside the plan's window and is consistent with the dates in the linked MIL-* document |
Pass | decision dates equal the Target Date of each MIL document and lie inside the window. |
| 4 | Every in-scope item of the Business Case is delivered at a named gateway (scope coverage) | Pass | Scope Coverage maps every in-scope item to a gateway. |
| 5 | Dependencies between gateways are stated, acyclic and consistent with the schedule order | Pass | chain MIL-001 to MIL-005 is acyclic and matches the order. |
| 6 | The plan states what happens to later gateways and to the end date when a gateway is No-Go | Pass | Dependencies says later dates move and S01 decides the end date. |
| 7 | Owners, reviewers and escalation roles use Stakeholder Analysis IDs and match the governance RACI | N-A | owners are S01; no GOV document exists yet, so there is no RACI to cross-check. |
| 8 | Planning assumptions are listed with their source, and a changed baseline is recorded with its reason | Pass | assumptions listed with source; no re-baseline yet. |
| 9 | Plan risks are listed with impact and a mitigation, and trace to Business Case risks where they come from there | Pass | four plan risks with mitigation; the Wayback risk traces to the BC live-site risk. |
| 10 | Open issues are listed, and none contradicts a statement elsewhere in the plan | Pass | open issues listed; the repository question was answered by S01 in chat and is recorded in the milestone tasks. |
| 11 | Each gateway's main deliverable is stated and matches the deliverable of its MIL-* document |
Pass | deliverables match the MIL Deliverable sections in substance. |
| 12 | Gateways that deliver user stories name them, and those that do not say why | Pass | Stories column says "none (technical tasks)". |
| 13 | The schedule view (table, Gantt) and the dependency view agree with each other | Pass | table, Gantt and dependency chain agree. |
| 14 | Each gateway is linked to its issue-tracker milestone, or marked as not yet synced | Pass | Milestone column says "not yet synced". |
| 15 | The plan is a singleton: one Project Plan per project, changes recorded in Version History | Pass | single project-plan.md; Version History kept. |
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 |