Files

4.5 KiB

SQA Review Record

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 f9765fd

Artifact Under Review

  • Instance reviewed: BC-001
  • Checklist used: QC-BC-001 and [QC-LANG-001]
  • Scope: full review
  • Language and domain: en / it (the artifact's Metadata rows)
  • Language reviewer: none (the reviewer reads English and knows the domain IT; mode: AI as stand-in for S01)
  • Mode: autonomous, not independent (AI as stand-in for S01); the author and the stand-in are both the AI working for S01

Checklist Results

# Criterion Status Evidence/Notes
1 ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified Pass The Cost-Benefit section is qualitative and states why: a learning project with no revenue or budget
2 Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation Pass Risks table: four risks, each with impact and mitigation
3 Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations Pass Six success criteria with explicit targets and a measure (e.g. 99.99 as a float, pytest exits 0)
4 Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope Pass Scope has In Scope and Out of Scope subsections
5 Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline Pass Stakeholders table cites S01, S02 and S03 from SA-001
6 Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) Pass Methodological and Standards Foundation names the framework, ISO/IEC 25010:2023 and the coding skills
7 Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another Pass Assumptions and Constraints are separate sections
8 Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation Pass Recommendation is a single 'Proceed' with a rationale

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 Metadata has `Language
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; the stand-in reads English
4 The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type Pass Executive types use IT Executive English, technical types IT Professional English, as the registry says; plain sentences, no jargon beyond IT terms
5 Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms Pass No dictionary (DICT) exists in this project; terms are used consistently (price, target price, alert, gateway) and no synonyms for them were found
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 <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 Pass First version; no language change since an earlier accepted version
9 A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly Pass The stand-in reads English and knows the IT domain; not independent of the author (recorded in Mode)
10 Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language Pass Abbreviations (SMTP, CAPTCHA, ROI, API, QC, ISO/IEC) are spelled out on first use

Overall Verdict

Go — all Mandatory criteria pass; the Cost-Benefit assessment is qualitative with a stated reason.

Action Items

Action Owner Due
None: no Fail and no Pending criterion S01 2026-10-28