4.1 KiB
4.1 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 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S02 | Review record, full review | cadc5ef |
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: none
- Mode: autonomous, not independent (the reviewer is
AI as stand-in for S02)
Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost-Benefit Assessment is qualitative and states why: unpaid learning project, no revenue. |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Risks table: six risks, each with impact and mitigation. |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Success Criteria: eight rows with numeric targets and a measure. |
| 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, Clean Architecture. |
| 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: Proceed. |
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 | Register of the type is IT Executive English (registry, Languages). |
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | Terms follow DICT-001: bot, cookie, cookies per second, lecture step, upgrade. |
| 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 in docs/. |
| 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 language change. |
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | The stand-in reviewer reads English and checked the IT terms in context. |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations (ADR, QC, ISO/IEC, S-IDs) are spelled out or defined where first used, or are the framework's own IDs. |
Overall Verdict
Go — BC-001 meets every Mandatory criterion. No blocking finding. The review is not independent: the AI authored and reviewed it as stand-in for S02, and S01 can challenge it in the end-of-run summary.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| None | S01 | - |