# SQA Review Record

## Metadata
| Key | Value |
| --- | --- |
| ID | RC-002 |
| CrossReference | [SA-001], [QC-SA-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 | [50e8331] |

---

## Artifact Under Review

- Instance reviewed: [SA-001]
- Checklist used: [QC-SA-001] (`QC-SA-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 | Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries | Pass | Summary table classifies S01, S02 and S03 with 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 | IDs S01 to S03 are unique and used by the other documents. |
| 3 | Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description | Pass | Each row states role, organization, Power Level and Interest Level. |
| 4 | Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones | Pass | Communication Requirements table CM-001 to CM-003 maps channels to milestones. |
| 5 | Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies | Pass | Conflicting Interests table has two conflicts, each with a mitigation. |
| 6 | Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives | Pass | Traceability Analysis maps every concern to Business Case objectives O1 to O8. |
| 7 | Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+) | Pass | Concerns CN-001 to CN-009 are in business language with a FURPS+ attribute. |
| 8 | Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry | Pass | Short tables with plain wording; each stakeholder's entry is one row. |
| 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 | Concern register has stable IDs CN-001 to CN-009 with the stakeholder who raised each. |

## 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 of SA-001 are English (stand-in assessment, see the verdict). |
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Register of the type is given in the registry (Languages); the text keeps to it. |
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | Terms follow DICT-001: bot, booking, lecture step (stand-in assessment, see the verdict). |
| 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 (stand-in assessment, see the verdict). |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations are spelled out or defined where first used, or are the framework's own IDs. |

## Overall Verdict

Go — SA-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. Criteria 3, 5 and 9 of QC-LANG-001 were assessed by the stand-in only; the framework would hold them `Pending` for an independent language reviewer. S01 is asked to confirm them in the end-of-run summary.

## Action Items

| Action | Owner | Due |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | S01 | - |

---

[SA-001]: ../../stakeholder-analysis.md
[QC-SA-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-stakeholder-analysis.md
[50e8331]: https://git.tirsystem.com/Tirsvad-Udemy-100-days-of-code/049-snack-and-lift/commit/50e8331bd21910a72ae56b74c9ff6a3677a709b3