4.2 KiB
4.2 KiB
Review of BC-001
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-001 |
| CrossReference | BC-001, QC-BC-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-28 | Proposed | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S01 | Initial version | 01e016e |
Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: BC-001
- Checklist used: QC-BC-001 (
QC-BC-001) - Scope: full review
- Language and domain: en / it
- Language reviewer: S01 (confirmed criteria 3, 5, 9 in chat on 2026-10-28)
- 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 says why: no revenue, value is learning and sharing. |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Risks table has 5 risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Success Criteria table has 7 numeric or checkable targets (100 titles, 0 duplicates, at most 3 dependencies). |
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | ### In Scope and ### Out of Scope are separate. |
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02, S03 only; no roles are re-described. |
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Foundation section names the framework, Larman and 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 says Proceed with one reason. |
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 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 | Confirmed by S01 in chat on 2026-10-28 (the document is English prose). |
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Register IT Executive English or IT Professional English per the registry table. |
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | Confirmed by S01 in chat on 2026-10-28; no dictionary (DICT) exists yet, so the terms are the standard IT terms. |
| 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 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 S01 in chat on 2026-10-28 (S01 is the domain expert and reads English). |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations are spelled out at first use (PO, ARB, QC, FURPS+). |
Overall Verdict
Go — every Mandatory criterion passes; no blocking finding. Language criteria 3, 5 and 9 were confirmed by S01 in chat on 2026-10-28, so none stays Pending.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| None | S01 | - |