68 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
68 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
# 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 | en` and `Domain | it` |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
|
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-business-case.md
|
|
[f9765fd]: https://git.tirsystem.com/Tirsvad-Udemy-100-days-of-code/047-amazon-price-tracker/commit/f9765fd3743f46c189359e713fd050c8e1a598b6
|