054-speed-calc-decorator/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-002-stakeholder-analysis.md

RC-002 Review of SA-001 Stakeholder Analysis

Metadata

Key	Value
ID	RC-002
CrossReference	SA-001, QC-SA-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: SA-001
• Checklist used: QC-SA-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	Power/Interest grid is filled for every stakeholder, with no gaps or unclassified entries	Pass	S01 HIGH/HIGH, S02 LOW/HIGH, S03 LOW/LOW, each with a Quadrant (Manage Closely, Keep Informed, Monitor); consistent with the grid
2	Each stakeholder is assigned a unique, stable ID reusable for RACI assignments in other artifacts	Pass	S01, S02, S03; used by BC-001 and the MIL-* Ownership tables
3	Roles and organizational context are defined with explicit Power and Interest levels, not just narrative description	Pass	Role/Title, Organization, Power Level and Interest Level columns are filled; a rationale section follows
4	Communication needs (channel, frequency, deliverable type) are mapped to project phases or milestones	Pass	CR-001 to CR-003 give channel, frequency, deliverable and MIL-*
5	Conflicting stakeholder interests are identified with documented mitigation or resolution strategies	Pass	Two conflicts (S01/S02 structure vs exact shape; S01/S03 thorough wiki vs short entry), each with a mitigation
6	Stakeholder concerns are explicitly traced to Business Case objectives	Pass	"Business Goal Alignment" maps every CN-ID. Round 1 defect (fixed): CN-007 (no runtime dependencies) was traced to objective 3 (venv and run instructions), which does not cover it; it now cites BC-001 success criterion 3 and the constraint "No runtime dependencies"
7	Primary concerns are expressed in both business language and a recognized quality-attribute mapping (e.g. FURPS+)	Pass	The concern table has a FURPS+ attribute per concern
8	Document is understandable and navigable by non-technical stakeholders reviewing their own entry	Pass	Plain sentences, one table row per stakeholder, a rationale per quadrant
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	CN-001 to CN-007, each with its stakeholder. First version, so no renumbering can have happened yet

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 Professional English: precise technical terms (decorator, venv, README) used without explanation, which suits the reader the registry assumes
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: FURPS+ was not spelled out; Purpose now lists its attributes. Other abbreviations are IDs or names

Overall Verdict

Go. No Fail on QC-SA-001 in round 2. Round 1 found one defect (criterion 6: CN-007 traced to a Business Case objective that does not cover it) and QC-LANG-001 criterion 10 (FURPS+ not spelled out), both 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.

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

---