4.9 KiB
4.9 KiB
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 | - |