5.4 KiB
5.4 KiB
Review of PP-001
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-003 |
| CrossReference | PP-001, QC-PP-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: PP-001
- Checklist used: QC-PP-001 (
QC-PP-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 | The plan states its start date, end date and the constraint it must fit | Pass | Planning Assumptions give start 2026-10-28 and end 2026-11-30, the Business Case window. |
| 2 | Every milestone or gateway is listed once with its document, decision date and owner | Pass | Seven rows, each with its MIL-* link, 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 linked 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 table 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-007 is acyclic and matches the dates. |
| 6 | The plan states what happens to later gateways and to the end date when a gateway is No-Go | Pass | Dependencies section states the effect of a No-Go and that S01 moves the end date. |
| 7 | Owners, reviewers and escalation roles use Stakeholder Analysis IDs and match the governance RACI | Pass | Only S01 is named, matching the GOV-001 RACI. |
| 8 | Planning assumptions are listed with their source, and a changed baseline is recorded with its reason | Pass | Planning Assumptions list sources; the browser.json assumption is explicit. |
| 9 | Plan risks are listed with impact and a mitigation, and trace to Business Case risks where they come from there | Pass | Plan Risks have impact and mitigation; the first traces to the Business Case browser.json risk. |
| 10 | Open issues are listed, and none contradicts a statement elsewhere in the plan | Pass | Open Issues list the owner name difference and the browser.json dependency; no contradiction. |
| 11 | Each gateway's main deliverable is stated and matches the deliverable of its MIL-* document |
Pass | Main deliverable column is the first clause of each MIL Deliverable. |
| 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 | Gantt bars use the table dates. |
| 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 | One Project Plan, PP-001. |
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 | - |