048-fill-out-form/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-stakeholder-analysis.md

SQA Review Record: SA-001

Metadata

Key	Value
ID	RC-002
CrossReference	SA-001, QC-SA-001, QC-LANG-001

Version History

Date	Status	Author	Reviewer	Change	Commit
2026-10-28	Accepted	Jens Tirsvad Nielsen	AI as stand-in for S01	Initial version	e1a3d8d

---

Artifact Under Review

• Instance reviewed: SA-001
• Checklist used: QC-SA-001
• Scope: full review
• Language and domain: en / it
• Language reviewer: none (the reviewer reads English and knows the IT domain)
• Mode: autonomous, not independent (reviewer: AI as stand-in for S01)

Checklist Results

#	Criterion	Status	Evidence/Notes
1	Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries	Pass	S01, S02, S03 all have power, interest and quadrant.
2	Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID (e.g. S01-S11 style) reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts	Pass	Stable IDs S01-S03.
3	Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description	Pass	Role, organisation, power and interest in the summary table.
4	Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones	Pass	Communication table C-01 to C-03 maps to milestones.
5	Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies	Pass	Two conflicts, each with a mitigation.
6	Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives	Pass	Traceability table cites BC-001 objectives.
7	Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+)	Pass	Concern register maps each concern to a FURPS+ attribute.
8	Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry	Pass	Short entries in plain language.
9	Every concern has a stable ID (CN-NNN) in the concern register, with the stakeholder who raised it; IDs are never renumbered or reused	Pass	CN-001 to CN-007, each with the stakeholder who raised it.

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.
4	The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type	Pass	IT Executive English for BC, PP and MIL; IT Professional English for SA, as the registry states.
5	Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms	Pass	No DICT exists yet; only standard IT terms are used, with no synonyms for one concept.
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 beside the document.
8	A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again	N-A	First version: no earlier accepted version, so no language change.
9	A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly	Pass	The reviewer (AI as stand-in for S01) reads English and knows the IT domain; not independent.
10	Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language	Pass	Abbreviations (ADR, PO, CI, FURPS+) are known to the audience or spelled out.

Overall Verdict

Go — every Mandatory criterion passes; no blocking finding.

Action Items

Action	Owner	Due
None	S01	n/a

---