054-speed-calc-decorator/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-001-business-case.md

RC-001 Review of BC-001 Business Case

Metadata

Key	Value
ID	RC-001
CrossReference	BC-001, QC-BC-001, QC-LANG-001

Version History

Date	Status	Author	Reviewer	Change	Commit
2026-11-06	Proposed	Jens Tirsvad Nielsen	AI as stand-in for S01	Initial version	a07d05b

---

Artifact Under Review

• Instance reviewed: BC-001
• Checklist used: QC-BC-001 and QC-LANG-001 (the type is written in the PO language)
• Scope: full review. Round 1 found the defects named under Overall Verdict; they were fixed in the document and the criteria re-checked in round 2, which this record shows.
• Language and domain: en / it
• Language reviewer: S01 (a person; confirmed criteria 3, 5 and 9 of QC-LANG-001 in chat on 2026-11-06)
• Mode: autonomous, not independent (the reviewer is AI as stand-in for S01; S01 is also the author, the Product Owner and the named reviewer)

Checklist Results

#	Criterion	Status	Evidence/Notes
1	ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified	Pass	Section "Cost–Benefit Assessment" is qualitative and says why: "this is a personal learning project with no revenue, so numbers would add no information"
2	Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation	Pass	Five risks, each row has Impact and Mitigation (flaky timing tests, token leak, wrong repository, translations, screenshot capture)
3	Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations	Pass	Six criteria with Target and Measure (e.g. 100 % tests green via python -m pytest, 0 runtime dependencies, at least 5 topics). The measure of criterion 2 ("captured in the lecture-step screenshots") is checked by MIL-002 Go criterion 2
4	Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope	Pass	Subsections "In Scope" and "Out of Scope"
5	Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline	Pass	The "Stakeholders" table keys on S01, S02, S03 and gives only the interest in this project; roles and power are not re-described. [SA-001] is in CrossReference
6	Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman)	Pass	"Methodological and Standards Foundation" names the framework, the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 tags and the coding-conventions skill
7	Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another	Pass	Separate sections. Round 1 defect (fixed): the constraint read "greater than 3.13 (3.13 or newer)" (ambiguous) and "No runtime dependencies unless needed" contradicted success criterion 3 (0 runtime dependencies). Now "Python 3.13 or newer" and "No runtime dependencies"
8	Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation	Pass	"Recommendation": "Proceed", with the reason

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 a BCP 47 code; it is in the domain table of docs/artifact-registry.md
3	The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language	Pass	Confirmed by S01 (a person) in chat, 2026-11-06. The English wording is correct
4	The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type	Pass	IT Executive English: short, outcome-oriented prose; technical detail (file names, commands) is limited to Scope and the Success Criteria measures, where it makes them checkable
5	Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms	Pass	Confirmed by S01 (a person) in chat, 2026-11-06. No DICT exists; the PO confirmed the terms are correct
6	Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English	Pass	All keys, headings and statuses are the framework's English ones
7	No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document	Pass	The docs/ listing has no twin file
8	A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again	N-A	No earlier accepted version exists and the language has been en since the first row
9	A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly	Pass	Confirmed by S01 (a person) in chat, 2026-11-06. S01 reads English and knows software and IT; the IT domain terms are used correctly
10	Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language	Pass	Round 1: GUI, PyPI, API and CI were used unexpanded; expanded on first use in round 2. README and ISO/IEC are names, not abbreviations to expand

Overall Verdict

Go. No Fail on QC-BC-001 in round 2. Round 1 found two defects (criterion 7: ambiguous Python version wording and a contradiction between the dependency constraint and success criterion 3; QC-LANG-001 criterion 10: unexpanded abbreviations), fixed in the document. Criteria 3, 5 and 9 of QC-LANG-001 were Pending and are now Pass: S01 (a person) confirmed the English wording and the IT domain terms in chat on 2026-11-06. All Mandatory rows pass, so the verdict is Go and the Version History row of the document is Accepted. The review remains Mode: autonomous, not independent for the rest. Finding: no Domain Dictionary exists, so criterion 5 has no reference; it is not in the plan and is not added here.

Action Items

Action	Owner	Due
Confirm criteria 3, 5 and 9 of QC-LANG-001 as a person (Closed: confirmed by S01 in chat, 2026-11-06; criteria set to Pass, verdict Go, document row Accepted)	S01	2026-11-06

---