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 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S02 | Review record, full review | [50e8331] |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 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: nine 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 and 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, with one rationale sentence. |
|
||
|
||
## 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 BC-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, class card, lecture step, waitlist, retry, profile (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 — 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. 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 | - |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
||
[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/artifacts/qc-business-case.md
|
||
[50e8331]: https://git.tirsystem.com/Tirsvad-Udemy-100-days-of-code/049-snack-and-lift/commit/50e8331bd21910a72ae56b74c9ff6a3677a709b3
|