Deliverables

The curriculum covers what an architect should know. This covers what an architect actually hands over: 55 artifacts, each with a worked example, a note on when it is worth producing, who reads it, and the ways it usually goes wrong. Filter by the artifact's type, the kind of engagement that calls for it, the stack or industry it is drawn against, or the audience it is written for.

Identify the deliverable → 42 diagrams, shown one at a time with the answer withheld. Nothing to submit.

55 of 55 deliverables shown.

flowchart TB
  subgraph sell["Sell"]
    direction LR
    s1["CRM<br/><i>SaaS · Sales</i>"]
    s2["Quoting<br/><i>bespoke · Sales</i>"]
    s3["Pricing A<br/><i>legacy · Sales</i>"]
    s4["Pricing B<br/><i>legacy · Regional</i>"]
  end
  subgraph fulfil["Fulfil"]
    direction LR
    f1["Order Mgmt<br/><i>bespoke · Ops</i>"]
    f2["WMS<br/><i>COTS · Ops</i>"]
    f3["Carrier Portal<br/><i>SaaS · Ops</i>"]
  end
  subgraph support["Support"]
    direction LR
    b1["ERP<br/><i>COTS · Finance</i>"]
    b2["Billing<br/><i>mainframe · Finance</i>"]
    b3["HRIS<br/><i>SaaS · HR</i>"]
    b4["Expenses<br/><i>SaaS · unowned</i>"]
  end
  s3 -.->|"same capability"| s4
Structural View

Application Landscape Diagram

Every application in the estate placed against the business areas it serves, so duplication and orphans become visible.

flowchart LR
  sales["Sales<br/><i>quote, opportunity, discount</i>"]
  orders["Ordering<br/><i>order, line, fulfilment</i>"]
  billing["Billing<br/><i>invoice, credit note, dunning</i>"]
  ship["Shipping<br/><i>consignment, manifest</i>"]
  legacy["Legacy Mainframe<br/><i>account master</i>"]

  sales -->|"Customer / Supplier"| orders
  orders -->|"Customer / Supplier"| billing
  orders -->|"Published Language"| ship
  legacy -->|"Anti-Corruption Layer"| orders
  billing -.->|"Shared Kernel — party identity"| sales
Structural View

Bounded Context Map

The domain model's fault lines — which parts of the business have their own language, and what kind of relationship each pair of them has.

flowchart TB
  subgraph core["Customer-Facing"]
    direction LR
    c1["Customer<br/>Management"]
    c2["Product &<br/>Catalogue"]
    c3["Order<br/>Capture"]
    c4["Fulfilment"]
  end
  subgraph enable["Enabling"]
    direction LR
    e1["Pricing &<br/>Promotion"]
    e2["Inventory<br/>Management"]
    e3["Payments &<br/>Settlement"]
    e4["Returns &<br/>Claims"]
  end
  subgraph support["Supporting"]
    direction LR
    s1["Finance &<br/>Accounting"]
    s2["Human<br/>Resources"]
    s3["Procurement"]
    s4["Risk &<br/>Compliance"]
  end
Structural View

Business Capability Map

What the business is able to do, arranged as a stable nested hierarchy of abilities with no processes, systems or org units on it.

Capability Mapping Discovery
flowchart TB
  gw["HTTP Gateway<br/><i>inbound</i>"]
  subgraph svc["Order API — inside the container"]
    direction TB
    ctrl["Order Controller<br/><i>validation, mapping</i>"]
    app["Order Application Service<br/><i>use cases, transactions</i>"]
    dom["Order Domain Model<br/><i>invariants, state rules</i>"]
    repo["Order Repository<br/><i>persistence port</i>"]
    pay["Payment Client<br/><i>anti-corruption adapter</i>"]
    out["Outbox Publisher"]
  end
  db[("PostgreSQL")]
  ext["Payment Provider"]
  bus[["Kafka"]]

  gw --> ctrl --> app
  app --> dom
  app --> repo --> db
  app --> pay --> ext
  app --> out --> db
  out -.->|"relay reads outbox"| bus
Structural View

Component Diagram

The inside of one runnable unit — its major code-level groupings, their responsibilities and what each one talks to.

C4 Model Design
flowchart TB
  cust(["Customer"])
  subgraph boundary["Order Management"]
    direction TB
    web["Web Application<br/><i>Next.js</i>"]
    api["Order API<br/><i>Java / Spring Boot</i>"]
    worker["Fulfilment Worker<br/><i>Java / Spring Boot</i>"]
    db[("Order Store<br/><i>PostgreSQL</i>")]
    queue[["Order Events<br/><i>Kafka</i>"]]
    cache[("Session Cache<br/><i>Redis</i>")]
  end
  pay["Payment Gateway"]

  cust -->|"HTTPS"| web
  web -->|"JSON over HTTPS"| api
  api -->|"reads and writes"| db
  api -->|"reads and writes"| cache
  api -->|"publishes"| queue
  queue -->|"consumes"| worker
  worker -->|"reads and writes"| db
  worker -->|"HTTPS"| pay
Structural View

Container Diagram

One level inside the system boundary — the separately deployable and runnable pieces, each named with the technology it is built on.

C4 Model Design
flowchart LR
  crm["CRM"]
  oms["Order Mgmt"]
  erp["ERP"]
  wms["WMS"]
  bill["Billing<br/><i>mainframe</i>"]
  dw[("Warehouse")]
  ptnr["Partner"]

  crm -->|"I-01 · REST · on demand"| oms
  oms -->|"I-02 · SFTP CSV · nightly"| erp
  oms -->|"I-03 · MQ · near real time"| wms
  wms -->|"I-04 · REST · on demand"| oms
  erp -->|"I-05 · flat file · nightly"| bill
  bill -->|"I-06 · DB link · nightly"| dw
  oms -->|"I-07 · CDC · continuous"| dw
  ptnr -->|"I-08 · AS2 EDI · hourly"| oms
  oms -->|"I-09 · AS2 EDI · hourly"| ptnr
Structural View

Integration Landscape Diagram

Every interface between systems, with its mechanism, direction, frequency and owner — the artifact that tells you what a migration will actually break.

flowchart TB
  subgraph l1["Experience"]
    direction LR
    e1["Web"] --- e2["Mobile"] --- e3["Partner Portal"]
  end
  subgraph l2["Channel & API"]
    direction LR
    c1["API Gateway"] --- c2["BFF"] --- c3["Event Ingress"]
  end
  subgraph l3["Business Services"]
    direction LR
    b1["Ordering"] --- b2["Pricing"] --- b3["Fulfilment"] --- b4["Billing"]
  end
  subgraph l4["Integration"]
    direction LR
    i1["Message Broker"] --- i2["Adapters"] --- i3["File Transfer"]
  end
  subgraph l5["Data"]
    direction LR
    d1["Operational Stores"] --- d2["Analytical Platform"] --- d3["Cache"]
  end
  subgraph l6["Infrastructure"]
    direction LR
    f1["Compute"] --- f2["Network"] --- f3["Storage"]
  end
  l1 --> l2 --> l3 --> l4 --> l5 --> l6

  sec["Security<br/>&<br/>Identity"]
  ops["Observability<br/>&<br/>Operations"]
Structural View

Layered Architecture Diagram

The solution as horizontal capability tiers with cross-cutting concerns as vertical bars — the picture executives expect and the one most often drawn without meaning.

flowchart TB
  cust(["Customer"])
  agent(["Support Agent"])
  sys["Order Management<br/>the system being described"]
  pay["Payment Gateway<br/>external SaaS"]
  erp["ERP<br/>existing on-premises"]
  mail["Email Provider<br/>external SaaS"]
  crm["CRM<br/>external SaaS"]

  cust -->|"places and tracks orders"| sys
  agent -->|"amends and refunds orders"| sys
  sys -->|"authorises and captures"| pay
  sys -->|"posts financial documents"| erp
  sys -->|"sends confirmations"| mail
  sys -->|"reads account and entitlement"| crm
Structural View

System Context Diagram

The single box of your system surrounded by the people and external systems it talks to, and nothing about how it is built inside.

Context Diagrams Discovery
flowchart LR
  subgraph cust["Customer"]
    direction TB
    c1(["Submits claim"])
  end
  subgraph intake["Intake — automated"]
    direction TB
    a1["Validate policy"]
    a2{"Policy active<br/>and in cover?"}
    a3["Auto-assess<br/><i>rules + model</i>"]
    a4{"Confidence<br/>&ge; threshold?"}
  end
  subgraph handler["Claims Handler"]
    direction TB
    h1["Manual review"]
    h2{"Approve?"}
  end
  subgraph fin["Finance"]
    direction TB
    p1["Schedule payment"]
  end

  c1 --> a1 --> a2
  a2 -->|"no"| r1(["Reject — notify with reason"])
  a2 -->|"yes"| a3 --> a4
  a4 -->|"yes"| p1
  a4 -->|"no"| h1 --> h2
  h2 -->|"yes"| p1
  h2 -->|"no"| r2(["Decline — notify with appeal route"])
  p1 --> e1(["Paid"])
Behavioural View

BPMN Process Diagram

A business process as tasks in swim lanes with explicit decision points and handoffs, where crossing a lane boundary is the interesting event.

Business Processes Discovery
flowchart LR
  commit(["commit to main"]) --> build

  subgraph ci["Continuous Integration"]
    direction TB
    build["build<br/><i>pinned deps, hermetic</i>"]
    unit["unit tests<br/><i>&lt; 4 min</i>"]
    scan["SAST + dependency<br/>+ secret scan"]
    sign["sign artifact<br/>+ emit SBOM"]
    build --> unit --> scan --> sign
  end

  sign --> reg[("artifact registry<br/><i>immutable, digest-addressed</i>")]

  subgraph cd["Continuous Delivery"]
    direction TB
    dev["deploy dev<br/><i>auto</i>"]
    ctest["contract tests"]
    stage["deploy staging<br/><i>auto</i>"]
    nft["performance +<br/>resilience suite"]
    dev --> ctest --> stage --> nft
  end

  reg --> dev
  nft --> gate{"release gate<br/><i>automated checks +<br/>change record</i>"}
  gate -->|"pass"| canary["canary 5%<br/><i>15 min bake</i>"]
  gate -->|"fail"| stop(["blocked"])
  canary --> analyse{"error rate and<br/>latency within SLO?"}
  analyse -->|"yes"| full["progressive rollout<br/><i>25% → 50% → 100%</i>"]
  analyse -->|"no"| rollback(["automatic rollback"])
Behavioural View

CI/CD Pipeline Diagram

The path from commit to production as ordered stages, showing what each one proves, what it produces, and where a human is still in the loop.

flowchart LR
  subgraph t1[" "]
    direction TB
    c1["cmd: Place Order"]
    e1["OrderPlaced<br/><i>fact</i>"]
    r1[("read: Order Status")]
    c1 --> e1 --> r1
  end
  subgraph t2[" "]
    direction TB
    c2["cmd: Authorise Payment"]
    e2["PaymentAuthorised<br/><i>fact</i>"]
    r2[("read: Payment Ledger")]
    c2 --> e2 --> r2
  end
  subgraph t3[" "]
    direction TB
    c3["policy: on PaymentAuthorised<br/>allocate stock"]
    e3["StockAllocated<br/><i>fact</i>"]
    r3[("read: Availability")]
    c3 --> e3 --> r3
  end
  subgraph t4[" "]
    direction TB
    c4["policy: on StockAllocated<br/>request despatch"]
    e4["ConsignmentCreated<br/><i>fact</i>"]
    r4[("read: Tracking")]
    c4 --> e4 --> r4
  end
  e1 --> c2
  e2 --> c3
  e3 --> c4
Behavioural View

Event Model

The business as a sequence of facts that happened, with the command that caused each and the read models and reactions it feeds.

flowchart TB
  subgraph fwd["Forward path"]
    direction LR
    f1["1. Reserve stock"] --> f2["2. Authorise payment"] --> f3["3. Create consignment"] --> f4["4. Capture payment"] --> f5["5. Despatch"]
  end
  subgraph comp["Compensation"]
    direction RL
    k1["Release stock"] --- k2["Void authorisation"] --- k3["Cancel consignment"] --- k4["Refund<br/><i>visible to customer</i>"]
  end
  f1 -.->|"undo"| k1
  f2 -.->|"undo"| k2
  f3 -.->|"undo"| k3
  f4 -.->|"undo"| k4
  f5 -.->|"no undo — goods have left"| x(["point of no return"])
Behavioural View

Saga Compensation Flow

A multi-service transaction as forward steps each paired with an undo, showing where the sequence becomes irreversible.

sequenceDiagram
  autonumber
  participant C as Client
  participant G as API Gateway
  participant O as Order Service
  participant P as Payment Gateway
  participant Q as Event Log

  C->>G: POST /orders (Idempotency-Key)
  G->>O: create order
  O->>O: persist as PENDING
  O->>P: authorise (deadline 3s)
  alt authorised
    P-->>O: approved + auth id
    O->>O: mark CONFIRMED
    O->>Q: OrderConfirmed
    O-->>G: 201 Created
  else declined
    P-->>O: declined
    O->>O: mark REJECTED
    O-->>G: 402 Payment Required
  else timeout
    P--xO: no response by deadline
    O->>O: keep PENDING
    O-->>G: 202 Accepted (poll for status)
    Note over O,P: reconciliation job settles<br/>PENDING against the provider
  end
  G-->>C: response
Behavioural View

Sequence Diagram

One scenario as an ordered exchange of messages between participants, with time on the vertical axis and the failure paths drawn rather than assumed.

stateDiagram-v2
  [*] --> Pending: order placed
  Pending --> Authorised: payment approved
  Pending --> Rejected: payment declined
  Pending --> Expired: no response in 24h
  Authorised --> Picking: stock allocated
  Authorised --> Cancelled: customer cancels
  Picking --> Shipped: consignment handed to carrier
  Picking --> Backordered: stock unavailable
  Backordered --> Picking: stock replenished
  Backordered --> Cancelled: customer cancels
  Shipped --> Delivered: carrier confirms
  Shipped --> Lost: no scan in 14 days
  Delivered --> Returned: return accepted
  Rejected --> [*]
  Expired --> [*]
  Cancelled --> [*]
  Delivered --> [*]
  Returned --> [*]
  Lost --> [*]
Behavioural View

State Machine Diagram

The legal states of one entity and the events that move it between them, which is where illegal transitions become visible.

flowchart LR
  a["Idea accepted<br/><i>work 2d</i>"]
  w1(["wait 9d<br/>backlog"])
  b["Refinement<br/><i>work 1d</i>"]
  w2(["wait 4d<br/>awaiting design"])
  c["Build<br/><i>work 5d</i>"]
  w3(["wait 3d<br/>awaiting review"])
  d["Code review<br/><i>work 0.5d</i>"]
  w4(["wait 6d<br/>awaiting test env"])
  e["Test<br/><i>work 2d</i>"]
  w5(["wait 11d<br/>awaiting release window"])
  f["Release<br/><i>work 0.5d</i>"]

  a --> w1 --> b --> w2 --> c --> w3 --> d --> w4 --> e --> w5 --> f
  f --> tot["Work 11d &middot; Wait 33d<br/>Lead time 44d &middot; Flow efficiency 25%"]
Behavioural View

Value Stream Map

Every step from request to delivery with its work time and its wait time, exposing that most of the elapsed time is queueing.

Flow Metrics Discovery
flowchart LR
  party["Party"]
  cust["Customer"]
  supp["Supplier"]
  prod["Product"]
  order["Order"]
  ship["Shipment"]
  inv["Invoice"]
  pay["Payment"]
  loc["Location"]

  cust -->|"is a"| party
  supp -->|"is a"| party
  cust -->|"places"| order
  order -->|"is for"| prod
  supp -->|"supplies"| prod
  order -->|"is fulfilled by"| ship
  ship -->|"is sent to"| loc
  order -->|"is billed on"| inv
  inv -->|"is settled by"| pay
Data View

Conceptual Data Model

The twelve or so things the business talks about and how they relate, with no attributes, no keys and no technology.

Data Architecture Discovery
flowchart LR
  cust(["Customer"])
  app["Registration<br/><i>process</i>"]
  kyc["KYC Provider<br/><i>external · EU</i>"]
  core["Core Platform<br/><i>process</i>"]
  crm[("CRM store<br/><i>EU region</i>")]
  dwh[("Analytics store<br/><i>EU region</i>")]
  mkt["Marketing SaaS<br/><i>external · US</i>"]

  cust -->|"name, DoB, address, ID image"| app
  app -->|"name, DoB, ID image"| kyc
  kyc -->|"pass/fail, risk score"| app
  app -->|"full profile"| core --> crm
  crm -->|"pseudonymised profile, nightly"| dwh
  crm -->|"email, consent flag, on change"| mkt
Data View

Data Flow Diagram

What data moves where, in what form, and how often — the view a privacy or residency question is actually answered from.

flowchart LR
  s1[("core_banking.accounts<br/><i>source</i>")]
  s2[("payments.transactions<br/><i>source</i>")]
  s3[("crm.customer<br/><i>source</i>")]

  j1{{"job: cdc_ingest<br/><i>hourly</i>"}}
  j2{{"job: conform_party<br/><i>daily 02:00</i>"}}
  j3{{"job: build_balances<br/><i>daily 03:15</i>"}}
  j4{{"job: reg_extract<br/><i>monthly</i>"}}

  r1[("raw.accounts")]
  r2[("raw.transactions")]
  c1[("clean.party")]
  c2[("clean.balance_daily")]
  o1[("report.capital_adequacy")]
  o2["Dashboard:<br/>Treasury Daily"]

  s1 --> j1 --> r1
  s2 --> j1 --> r2
  s3 --> j2
  r1 --> j2 --> c1
  r1 --> j3
  r2 --> j3 --> c2
  c1 --> j3
  c2 --> j4 --> o1
  c2 --> o2
Data View

Data Lineage Graph

Which dataset was derived from which, through what job — the artifact you produce when someone asks where a number came from.

flowchart TB
  subgraph d1["Domain: Sales"]
    direction TB
    p1["<b>customer-360</b><br/><i>daily · 99.5% freshness SLO<br/>owner: Sales Data</i>"]
    p2["<b>pipeline-facts</b><br/><i>hourly</i>"]
  end
  subgraph d2["Domain: Fulfilment"]
    direction TB
    p3["<b>order-events</b><br/><i>streaming · &lt;60s<br/>owner: Fulfilment Eng</i>"]
    p4["<b>delivery-performance</b><br/><i>daily</i>"]
  end
  subgraph d3["Domain: Finance"]
    direction TB
    p5["<b>revenue-recognised</b><br/><i>daily · certified<br/>owner: Finance Systems</i>"]
  end

  subgraph plat["Self-Serve Platform"]
    direction LR
    s1["storage + compute"] --- s2["catalog + lineage"] --- s3["access control"] --- s4["quality + observability"]
  end

  gov["Federated Governance<br/><i>global: identity keys · classification · retention</i>"]

  p3 -->|"consumed by"| p1
  p1 -->|"consumed by"| p5
  p3 -->|"consumed by"| p5
  plat --- d1
  plat --- d2
  plat --- d3
  gov -.-> d1
  gov -.-> d2
  gov -.-> d3
Data View

Data Mesh Domain Map

Which domain owns which data product, what each one guarantees, and the shared platform underneath that makes publishing one cheap.

Data Mesh Design
erDiagram
  CUSTOMER ||--o{ ORDER : places
  CUSTOMER ||--o{ ADDRESS : has
  ORDER ||--|{ ORDER_LINE : contains
  ORDER }o--|| ADDRESS : "ships to"
  ORDER ||--o| PAYMENT : "settled by"
  PRODUCT ||--o{ ORDER_LINE : "appears in"
  PRODUCT }o--|| CATEGORY : "belongs to"

  CUSTOMER {
    uuid id PK
    string email UK
    string status
    timestamp created_at
  }
  ORDER {
    uuid id PK
    uuid customer_id FK
    uuid ship_to_id FK
    string status
    numeric total_minor
    string currency
  }
  ORDER_LINE {
    uuid id PK
    uuid order_id FK
    uuid product_id FK
    int quantity
    numeric unit_price_minor
  }
  PAYMENT {
    uuid id PK
    uuid order_id FK
    string provider_ref UK
    string state
  }
Data View

Entity Relationship Diagram

Entities, their attributes and the cardinality between them — where the notation on the end of each line is the actual content.

flowchart LR
  subgraph src["Sources"]
    direction TB
    oltp[("Operational DBs<br/><i>CDC</i>")]
    saas["SaaS APIs<br/><i>batch pull</i>"]
    events[["Event Stream<br/><i>Kafka</i>"]]
    files["Partner Files<br/><i>SFTP drop</i>"]
  end

  subgraph raw["Raw Zone"]
    direction TB
    r1[("append-only<br/>source schema<br/>no transforms")]
    r2["<i>guarantee:</i><br/>replayable history"]
  end

  subgraph clean["Cleansed Zone"]
    direction TB
    c1[("deduplicated<br/>typed, conformed<br/>quality-tested")]
    c2["<i>guarantee:</i><br/>schema + quality SLA"]
  end

  subgraph curated["Curated Zone"]
    direction TB
    g1[("business entities<br/>modelled, aggregated")]
    g2["<i>guarantee:</i><br/>agreed definitions"]
  end

  subgraph serve["Consumers"]
    direction TB
    bi["BI & Reporting"]
    ml["Feature Store<br/>& Model Training"]
    api["Data API<br/>& Reverse ETL"]
  end

  oltp --> raw
  saas --> raw
  events --> raw
  files --> raw
  raw --> clean
  clean --> curated
  curated --> serve
  clean -.->|"exploration only"| ml
Data View

Layered Data Platform Diagram

Sources landing into progressively refined zones, with the contract each zone offers written down rather than assumed.

flowchart LR
  src1[("Orders DB")] --> cdc["CDC connector"]
  cdc --> t1[["orders.raw<br/><i>12 parts · key: orderId<br/>retain 7d</i>"]]
  src2["Clickstream"] --> t2[["events.clicks<br/><i>36 parts · key: sessionId<br/>retain 3d</i>"]]

  t1 --> p1["Normalise<br/><i>stateless</i>"]
  p1 --> t3[["orders.clean<br/><i>12 parts · key: orderId<br/>compacted</i>"]]
  t3 --> p2["Enrich + join<br/><i>stateful · 30 min window</i>"]
  t2 --> p2
  p2 --> st[("RocksDB state<br/><i>checkpoint 60s</i>")]
  p2 --> t4[["orders.enriched<br/><i>12 parts · retain 30d</i>"]]
  p2 --> dlq[["orders.dlq"]]

  t4 --> sink1["Serving store"]
  t4 --> sink2["Lakehouse sink<br/><i>5 min commit</i>"]
Data View

Streaming Topology Diagram

Topics, partitions, processors and state stores in one picture, with the retention and keying decisions that determine whether it can be replayed.

flowchart TB
  root["Organisation Root<br/><i>policy: deny unapproved regions</i>"]

  subgraph plat["Platform"]
    direction TB
    ident["Identity<br/><i>directory, privileged access</i>"]
    conn["Connectivity<br/><i>hub VNet/VPC, firewall, DNS, VPN</i>"]
    mgmt["Management<br/><i>logs, backup, monitoring</i>"]
  end

  subgraph land["Landing Zones"]
    direction TB
    subgraph corp["Corporate"]
      p1["Prod A<br/><i>spoke</i>"]
      n1["Non-Prod A<br/><i>spoke</i>"]
    end
    subgraph online["Internet-Facing"]
      p2["Prod B<br/><i>spoke</i>"]
      n2["Non-Prod B<br/><i>spoke</i>"]
    end
  end

  sandbox["Sandbox<br/><i>spend cap, no connectivity, auto-expire</i>"]
  decom["Decommissioned<br/><i>deny all</i>"]

  root --> plat
  root --> land
  root --> sandbox
  root --> decom
  conn --- p1
  conn --- n1
  conn --- p2
  conn --- n2
  mgmt -.->|"diagnostics forwarded"| land
  ident -.->|"roles and groups"| land
Deployment & Infrastructure View

Cloud Landing Zone Diagram

The account, network, identity and policy scaffolding every future workload will be dropped into, drawn before the first workload exists.

Landing Zones Design
flowchart TB
  users(["Users"]) --> dns["Global DNS<br/><i>latency routing + health checks</i>"]

  subgraph r1["Region: primary"]
    direction TB
    lb1["Load Balancer<br/><i>public</i>"]
    subgraph az1["Zone A"]
      n1["Node Pool<br/><i>api ×3, worker ×2</i>"]
    end
    subgraph az2["Zone B"]
      n2["Node Pool<br/><i>api ×3, worker ×2</i>"]
    end
    subgraph az3["Zone C"]
      n3["Node Pool<br/><i>api ×2, worker ×1</i>"]
    end
    db1[("Primary DB<br/><i>synchronous replica in Zone B</i>")]
    lb1 --> n1
    lb1 --> n2
    lb1 --> n3
    n1 --> db1
    n2 --> db1
    n3 --> db1
  end

  subgraph r2["Region: secondary"]
    direction TB
    lb2["Load Balancer<br/><i>warm</i>"]
    n4["Node Pool<br/><i>api ×2, scaled down</i>"]
    db2[("Read Replica<br/><i>asynchronous — RPO 30s</i>")]
    lb2 --> n4 --> db2
  end

  dns --> lb1
  dns -.->|"failover only"| lb2
  db1 -.->|"async replication"| db2
Deployment & Infrastructure View

Deployment Diagram

Which runtime artifact runs on which infrastructure, in which zone and region, and what fails when one of those boundaries fails.

flowchart TB
  subgraph pri["Primary site"]
    direction TB
    p1["Application tier"]
    p2[("Transactional DB")]
    p3[("Object storage")]
    p4["Secrets + config"]
  end
  subgraph dr["Recovery site — warm"]
    direction TB
    d1["Application tier<br/><i>scaled to 0 · IaC ready</i>"]
    d2[("DB replica<br/><i>async · lag &lt; 30s</i>")]
    d3[("Storage replica<br/><i>cross-region · 15 min</i>")]
    d4["Secrets replicated"]
  end

  p2 ==>|"async"| d2
  p3 ==>|"async"| d3
  p4 ==>|"sync"| d4

  subgraph run["Recovery sequence — tested 2026-05-18"]
    direction TB
    s1["1. Declare · 5 min"]
    s2["2. Promote replica · 8 min"]
    s3["3. Scale app tier · 6 min"]
    s4["4. Repoint DNS · 5 min<br/><i>TTL 60s</i>"]
    s5["5. Verify + reconcile · 12 min"]
    s1 --> s2 --> s3 --> s4 --> s5
  end
  dr --> run
  run --> res(["Restored — measured RTO 36 min"])
Deployment & Infrastructure View

Disaster Recovery Topology

What is replicated where, in what order recovery happens, and the tested time each step takes.

flowchart LR
  subgraph e1["Ephemeral / PR"]
    direction TB
    a1["scaled to 1<br/>mocked externals<br/>synthetic data<br/><i>proves: it builds and unit-passes</i><br/>auto-destroy 24h"]
  end
  subgraph e2["Dev"]
    direction TB
    a2["shared<br/>real internal deps<br/>synthetic data<br/><i>proves: integration wiring</i><br/>anyone deploys"]
  end
  subgraph e3["Staging"]
    direction TB
    a3["prod-shaped topology<br/>real deps · sandbox externals<br/>masked prod-like data<br/><i>proves: contracts + performance</i><br/>pipeline only"]
  end
  subgraph e4["Production"]
    direction TB
    a4["full scale · multi-AZ<br/>real data<br/><i>proves: nothing — it serves</i><br/>pipeline + gate"]
  end
  e1 --> e2 --> e3 --> e4
  note["Same artifact promoted throughout.<br/>Config differs; the image digest does not."]
Deployment & Infrastructure View

Environment Topology

Which environments exist, what each one proves, what data it holds and who may deploy to it.

flowchart TB
  subgraph prod["Cluster: prod-eu (regional, 3 AZ)"]
    direction TB
    cp["Control plane<br/><i>managed · private endpoint</i>"]
    subgraph pools["Node pools"]
      direction LR
      np1["system<br/><i>taint: CriticalAddonsOnly</i>"]
      np2["general<br/><i>3–30 nodes · spot 40%</i>"]
      np3["memory<br/><i>taint: workload=memory</i>"]
      np4["gpu<br/><i>taint: workload=gpu</i>"]
    end
    subgraph ns["Namespaces"]
      direction LR
      n1["team-orders<br/><i>quota · NetworkPolicy<br/>default-deny</i>"]
      n2["team-pricing<br/><i>quota · NetworkPolicy</i>"]
      n3["platform<br/><i>mesh · ingress · logging</i>"]
    end
    cp --- pools
    pools --- ns
  end
  subgraph nonprod["Cluster: nonprod-eu"]
    direction TB
    x1["shared node pool<br/><i>spot 90%</i>"]
  end
  reg[("Image registry<br/><i>signed images only</i>")] --> prod
  reg --> nonprod
  gitops["GitOps reconciler"] -.->|"applies desired state"| prod
Deployment & Infrastructure View

Kubernetes Cluster Topology

How many clusters, split by what, which node pools exist and what isolates one tenant from another.

flowchart TB
  u(["Users"]) --> gslb["Global traffic manager<br/><i>health + latency routing</i>"]

  subgraph ra["Region A — write primary"]
    direction TB
    a1["Edge + API"]
    a2["Services"]
    a3[("Primary DB<br/><i>accepts writes</i>")]
    a1 --> a2 --> a3
  end

  subgraph rb["Region B — read + standby"]
    direction TB
    b1["Edge + API"]
    b2["Services"]
    b3[("Replica<br/><i>read only · lag &lt; 2s</i>")]
    b1 --> b2 --> b3
  end

  gslb -->|"reads: nearest"| a1
  gslb -->|"reads: nearest"| b1
  gslb -->|"writes: always A"| a1
  b2 -.->|"write forwarding<br/>+45ms"| a2
  a3 ==>|"async replication"| b3
  arb{{"Failover arbitration<br/><i>manual promote · documented<br/>RPO &le; 2s · RTO 15 min</i>"}}
  arb -.-> a3
  arb -.-> b3
Deployment & Infrastructure View

Multi-Region Topology

How many regions serve traffic, where writes are allowed, how data converges, and what the split-brain answer is.

flowchart TB
  inet(["Internet"])
  dc["Corporate Data Centre<br/><i>10.0.0.0/8</i>"]

  subgraph hub["Hub — 10.100.0.0/16"]
    direction TB
    fw["Egress Firewall<br/><i>FQDN allow-list</i>"]
    vpn["VPN / Direct Link<br/><i>BGP</i>"]
    dns["Private DNS Resolver"]
  end

  subgraph spokeA["Spoke: Prod — 10.101.0.0/16"]
    direction TB
    pub["Public Subnet<br/><i>10.101.0.0/24 — ingress LB only</i>"]
    app["App Subnet<br/><i>10.101.10.0/23 — no public IPs</i>"]
    data["Data Subnet<br/><i>10.101.20.0/24 — private endpoints</i>"]
    pub --> app --> data
  end

  subgraph spokeB["Spoke: Non-Prod — 10.102.0.0/16"]
    appn["App Subnet<br/><i>10.102.10.0/23</i>"]
  end

  inet -->|"443 only"| pub
  app -->|"all egress"| fw --> inet
  appn --> fw
  dc <-->|"BGP"| vpn
  vpn --- spokeA
  vpn --- spokeB
  spokeA x--x spokeB
Deployment & Infrastructure View

Network Topology Diagram

Segments, address ranges, routes and the control points between them — the view that says what can reach what at layer three.

Networking Design
sequenceDiagram
  autonumber
  participant B as Browser
  participant A as App / BFF
  participant I as Identity Provider
  participant R as Resource API

  B->>A: GET /protected
  A-->>B: 302 to IdP (PKCE challenge, state, nonce)
  B->>I: authorise request
  I->>B: authenticate + MFA
  I-->>B: 302 back with authorisation code
  B->>A: code + state
  Note over A,I: back channel — browser never sees these
  A->>I: exchange code + PKCE verifier + client secret
  I-->>A: access token (10 min), refresh token, id token
  A->>A: store tokens server-side<br/>set HttpOnly SameSite cookie
  A-->>B: session cookie only
  B->>A: subsequent request + cookie
  A->>R: call with access token (Bearer)
  R->>I: fetch/refresh signing keys (JWKS, cached)
  R->>R: verify signature, issuer, audience,<br/>expiry, scope
  R-->>A: 200
  A-->>B: rendered response
  Note over A,I: on expiry the BFF refreshes<br/>with rotating refresh token
Security View

Authentication Flow Diagram

The exact token exchange between browser, application, authorisation server and API — including what is short-lived, what is bound and what never touches the browser.

flowchart LR
  subgraph t4["Restricted"]
    direction TB
    a1["Card PAN · health records<br/>government ID images"]
    a2["<i>controls:</i> tokenise at edge<br/>field encryption · CMK<br/>no non-prod copies<br/>access JIT + approved<br/>full audit"]
  end
  subgraph t3["Confidential"]
    direction TB
    b1["Personal data · salary<br/>contracts · pricing"]
    b2["<i>controls:</i> encrypt at rest + transit<br/>masked in non-prod<br/>RBAC + quarterly review<br/>DLP on egress"]
  end
  subgraph t2["Internal"]
    direction TB
    c1["Operational metrics<br/>internal docs"]
    c2["<i>controls:</i> authenticated access<br/>standard retention"]
  end
  subgraph t1["Public"]
    direction TB
    d1["Published pricing<br/>marketing content"]
    d2["<i>controls:</i> integrity only"]
  end

  t4 --> s1[("Core DB · EU · Restricted")]
  t3 --> s1
  t3 --> s2[("Warehouse · EU · Confidential")]
  t2 --> s2
  t2 --> s3[("Object store · Internal")]
  t1 --> s3
Security View

Data Classification Map

Which data sits in which sensitivity tier, where it lives, and the specific controls each tier obliges — so protection follows the label automatically.

flowchart LR
  subgraph who["Identities"]
    direction TB
    dev(["Developers<br/><i>group</i>"])
    sre(["SRE<br/><i>group</i>"])
    aud(["Auditors<br/><i>group</i>"])
    wl["Workload Identity<br/><i>order-api</i>"]
    ci["Pipeline Identity<br/><i>deploy-prod</i>"]
  end

  subgraph roles["Roles"]
    direction TB
    r1["Reader<br/><i>standing</i>"]
    r2["Operator<br/><i>standing</i>"]
    r3["Break-Glass Admin<br/><i>JIT — 60 min, approved, logged</i>"]
    r4["Deployer<br/><i>pipeline only</i>"]
    r5["Data Reader — Masked<br/><i>no raw PII</i>"]
  end

  subgraph what["Resources"]
    direction TB
    a1["Prod Compute"]
    a2["Prod Data Store"]
    a3["Key Vault"]
    a4["Audit Logs<br/><i>append-only</i>"]
  end

  dev --> r1 --> a1
  dev --> r5 --> a2
  sre --> r2 --> a1
  sre --> r3
  r3 --> a1
  r3 --> a2
  aud --> r1 --> a4
  wl --> r5
  wl --> a3
  ci --> r4 --> a1
Security View

IAM Role Model

Which identities may do what to which resource, expressed through roles rather than by naming people, so that access can be reviewed.

flowchart TB
  hsm[("HSM / Key Service<br/><i>root of trust · FIPS 140-2 L3</i>")]
  cmk["Customer Master Key<br/><i>per environment · rotate 1y</i>"]
  dek["Data Encryption Keys<br/><i>per dataset · rotate 90d</i>"]

  hsm --> cmk -->|"wraps"| dek

  subgraph vault["Secret Store"]
    direction TB
    v1["Static secrets<br/><i>rotate 90d</i>"]
    v2["Dynamic credentials<br/><i>DB · TTL 1h</i>"]
    v3["PKI issuer<br/><i>mTLS certs · TTL 24h</i>"]
  end
  cmk -->|"encrypts vault at rest"| vault

  subgraph wl["Workloads"]
    direction TB
    w1["Service A<br/><i>workload identity</i>"]
    w2["Pipeline<br/><i>OIDC federation</i>"]
  end

  w1 -->|"attests identity — no stored secret"| vault
  w2 -->|"short-lived token — no stored secret"| vault
  vault -->|"lease · auto-renew · revocable"| w1
  dek -->|"envelope decrypt"| w1
  audit[("Audit log<br/><i>every issue and revoke</i>")]
  vault --> audit
Security View

Key & Secret Management Diagram

Where keys and secrets live, what wraps what, how workloads get them without a stored credential, and how rotation actually happens.

flowchart LR
  user(["Customer<br/><i>untrusted</i>"])
  admin(["Admin<br/><i>privileged</i>"])

  subgraph edge["Boundary 1 — public edge"]
    cdn["CDN / WAF"]
  end

  subgraph app["Boundary 2 — application tier"]
    direction TB
    api["Order API"]
    auth["Auth Service"]
  end

  subgraph datab["Boundary 3 — data tier"]
    direction TB
    db[("Order Store<br/><i>PII + card token</i>")]
    kms[("Key Vault")]
  end

  ext["Payment Provider<br/><i>third party</i>"]

  user -->|"F1 HTTPS"| cdn
  cdn -->|"F2 HTTPS + mTLS"| api
  admin -->|"F3 admin console"| api
  api -->|"F4 token introspection"| auth
  api -->|"F5 TLS + parameterised"| db
  api -->|"F6 fetch DEK"| kms
  api -->|"F7 HTTPS outbound"| ext
  ext -->|"F8 webhook — signed"| cdn
Security View

Threat Model Data Flow Diagram

Processes, stores and flows with trust boundaries drawn across them, so that every boundary crossing can be enumerated for threats.

flowchart LR
  u1(["Employee<br/><i>managed laptop</i>"])
  u2(["Contractor<br/><i>unmanaged device</i>"])
  u3["Workload<br/><i>service identity</i>"]

  subgraph pep["Policy Enforcement"]
    direction TB
    px["Proxy / Gateway<br/><i>terminates every session</i>"]
  end

  subgraph pdp["Policy Decision"]
    direction TB
    eng{"Policy engine"}
    sig1["Identity + MFA"]
    sig2["Device posture"]
    sig3["Risk + location"]
    sig4["Resource sensitivity"]
    sig1 --> eng
    sig2 --> eng
    sig3 --> eng
    sig4 --> eng
  end

  subgraph res["Resources"]
    direction TB
    r1["Internal app"]
    r2[("Database")]
    r3["SaaS"]
  end

  u1 --> px
  u2 --> px
  u3 --> px
  px <-->|"authorise this request"| eng
  px -->|"allow · scoped · time-bound"| r1
  px -->|"allow · read-only"| r2
  px -->|"deny · posture fail"| r3
  log[("Decision log<br/><i>every allow and deny</i>")]
  eng --> log
Security View

Zero Trust Architecture Diagram

Access decided per request from identity, device and context rather than from network position, with the policy decision point drawn explicitly.

flowchart TB
  s(["Alert: order submit p99 > 900 ms<br/>for 5 min"])
  s --> c1["1. Confirm scope<br/><i>one region or global?</i>"]
  c1 --> q1{"Global?"}
  q1 -->|"no"| a1["2a. Check that region's<br/>dependency health"]
  q1 -->|"yes"| a2["2b. Check shared dependencies:<br/>DB, cache, identity"]
  a1 --> q2{"Region-local cause?"}
  q2 -->|"yes"| m1["3. Shift traffic away<br/><i>runbook OPS-04</i>"]
  q2 -->|"no"| a2
  a2 --> q3{"DB CPU > 80%<br/>or replication lag > 10s?"}
  q3 -->|"yes"| m2["4. Enable read-path cache bypass=off<br/>+ raise connection limit<br/><i>flag: cache.aggressive</i>"]
  q3 -->|"no"| q4{"Recent deploy<br/>in last 60 min?"}
  q4 -->|"yes"| m3["5. Roll back<br/><i>runbook OPS-01</i>"]
  q4 -->|"no"| esc(["6. Escalate to<br/>Order team on-call<br/><i>stop investigating</i>"])
  m1 --> v["7. Verify p99 recovers<br/>within 10 min"]
  m2 --> v
  m3 --> v
  v --> q5{"Recovered?"}
  q5 -->|"yes"| done(["Close · record in incident log"])
  q5 -->|"no"| esc
Governance Artifact

Operational Runbook

A specific, tested procedure for one alert — what to check, in what order, what to do, and when to stop and escalate.

gantt
  title Target state — 18 months
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
  axisFormat %b %y

  section Foundation
  Landing zone and connectivity      :done,   f1, 2026-01-01, 60d
  Identity federation                :done,   f2, after f1, 45d
  Observability baseline             :active, f3, after f1, 75d

  section Decouple
  Strangler facade at edge           :active, d1, 2026-03-15, 90d
  Extract order domain               :        d2, after d1, 120d
  Extract pricing domain             :        d3, after d2, 90d
  Retire shared order database       :crit,   d4, after d3, 60d

  section Data
  Ingest to raw zone                 :        a1, 2026-04-01, 75d
  Conformed customer entity          :        a2, after a1, 90d
  Retire nightly extract jobs        :        a3, after a2, 45d

  section Resilience
  Multi-zone for tier 0              :        r1, 2026-06-01, 60d
  Automated failover rehearsal       :        r2, after r1, 45d
  Second region for tier 0           :crit,   r3, after r2, 90d
Planning Artifact

Architecture Roadmap

The sequence of architectural change over time, grouped by theme, with dependencies visible and each bar tied to an outcome rather than a technology.

flowchart TB
  t1["T-7d · Dry run in staging<br/><i>full rehearsal, timed</i><br/>owner: Delivery"]
  t2["T-1d · Freeze changes · verify backups<br/>confirm rota and bridge<br/>owner: Ops"]
  t3["T-0 00:00 · Enable read-only on legacy<br/>owner: Ops"]
  t4["T-0 00:15 · Final delta migration<br/><i>est 90 min · checkpoint at 60</i><br/>owner: Data"]
  t5["T-0 01:45 · Reconcile counts + checksums<br/>owner: Data"]
  g1{"T-0 02:15 · GO / NO-GO<br/><i>criteria: 100% row match,<br/>0 critical defects, all owners present</i>"}
  t6["T-0 02:30 · Repoint DNS + feature flag<br/><i>TTL pre-lowered to 60s</i><br/>owner: Platform"]
  t7["T-0 02:45 · Smoke suite + 10 manual journeys<br/>owner: QA"]
  g2{"T-0 03:30 · Accept or roll back"}
  t8["T-0 03:30 · Open to 10% traffic<br/>owner: Platform"]
  t9["T-0 06:00 · 100% traffic<br/>owner: Platform"]
  t10["T+24h · Hypercare ends<br/>legacy kept read-only 30d"]
  rb(["ROLLBACK · revert DNS<br/>re-enable legacy writes<br/><i>est 20 min</i>"])
  pnr["POINT OF NO RETURN<br/><i>after first write to new system<br/>rollback needs reverse migration</i>"]

  t1 --> t2 --> t3 --> t4 --> t5 --> g1
  g1 -->|"no-go"| rb
  g1 -->|"go"| t6 --> t7 --> g2
  g2 -->|"roll back"| rb
  g2 -->|"accept"| t8 --> t9 --> t10
  t8 -.-> pnr
Planning Artifact

Cutover Plan

The hour-by-hour sequence of go-live, with owners, checkpoints, the rollback decision point and the moment rollback stops being possible.

flowchart LR
  subgraph w0["Wave 0 — Foundation"]
    direction TB
    f1["Landing zone"]
    f2["Connectivity + DNS"]
    f3["Identity federation"]
    f4["Observability + backup"]
  end

  subgraph w1["Wave 1 — Prove it (6 apps)"]
    direction TB
    a1["Internal wiki<br/><i>rehost</i>"]
    a2["Reporting portal<br/><i>rehost</i>"]
    a3["Batch scheduler<br/><i>replatform</i>"]
  end

  subgraph w2["Wave 2 — Bulk (34 apps)"]
    direction TB
    b1["Departmental apps<br/><i>rehost ×26</i>"]
    b2["Shared services<br/><i>replatform ×8</i>"]
  end

  subgraph w3["Wave 3 — Hard cases (9 apps)"]
    direction TB
    c1["Order management<br/><i>refactor</i>"]
    c2["Data warehouse<br/><i>replatform</i>"]
    c3["Partner gateway<br/><i>refactor</i>"]
  end

  subgraph w4["Wave 4 — Exit"]
    direction TB
    d1["Mainframe interfaces<br/><i>replace</i>"]
    d2["Data centre exit<br/><i>contract ends Q3</i>"]
  end

  w0 -->|"platform accepted<br/>by security + ops"| w1
  w1 -->|"runbook proven<br/>rollback rehearsed"| w2
  w2 -->|"shared services live<br/>latency measured"| w3
  w3 -->|"last dependency<br/>severed"| w4
Planning Artifact

Migration Wave Plan

Which applications move in which batch, in what order, and what the dependency between batches actually is.

flowchart TB
  subgraph l1["Capabilities delivered"]
    direction LR
    c1["Product<br/>engineering"] --- c2["Data &<br/>analytics"] --- c3["Platform &<br/>infrastructure"] --- c4["Security &<br/>risk"]
  end
  subgraph l2["Organisation"]
    direction LR
    o1["Stream-aligned teams<br/><i>×9 · own build and run</i>"] --- o2["Platform team<br/><i>×1 · paved road</i>"] --- o3["Enabling team<br/><i>×1 · coaching</i>"] --- o4["Architecture chapter<br/><i>federated</i>"]
  end
  subgraph l3["Ways of working"]
    direction LR
    p1["Product-funded<br/><i>not project</i>"] --- p2["You build it<br/>you run it"] --- p3["Continuous<br/>delivery"] --- p4["Design authority<br/><i>advisory + gates</i>"]
  end
  subgraph l4["Governance"]
    direction LR
    g1["ARB<br/><i>off-radar only</i>"] --- g2["Tech radar<br/><i>quarterly</i>"] --- g3["Automated<br/>compliance"] --- g4["Exception<br/>register"]
  end
  subgraph l5["People"]
    direction LR
    s1["Skills gaps<br/><i>SRE ×6 · data eng ×4</i>"] --- s2["Sourcing<br/><i>hire 6 · reskill 4</i>"] --- s3["Career paths<br/><i>IC track added</i>"]
  end
  l1 --> l2 --> l3 --> l4 --> l5
Planning Artifact

Target Operating Model

How the organisation will be arranged to run the new architecture — capabilities, teams, processes, governance and skills, not just the systems.

Operating Models Discovery
quadrantChart
  title Business value against technical health
  x-axis "Poor technical health" --> "Good technical health"
  y-axis "Low business value" --> "High business value"
  quadrant-1 Invest
  quadrant-2 Migrate or re-engineer
  quadrant-3 Eliminate
  quadrant-4 Tolerate
  "Order management": [0.28, 0.92]
  "Payment gateway": [0.81, 0.95]
  "Customer portal": [0.74, 0.78]
  "Pricing engine": [0.22, 0.84]
  "Mainframe billing": [0.14, 0.88]
  "Legacy CRM": [0.19, 0.34]
  "Reporting portal": [0.31, 0.26]
  "Expenses tool": [0.68, 0.22]
  "Intranet wiki": [0.72, 0.18]
  "Partner gateway": [0.44, 0.66]
Analysis Artifact

Application Portfolio Heat Map

Every application placed on business value against technical health, so that invest, tolerate, migrate and eliminate become positions rather than opinions.

quadrantChart
  title Platform technologies
  x-axis "Retire" --> "Adopt"
  y-axis "Low usage" --> "High usage"
  quadrant-1 "Adopt — default choice"
  quadrant-2 "Hold — in use, do not extend"
  quadrant-3 "Retire — plan removal"
  quadrant-4 "Trial / Assess — bounded use"
  "Kubernetes (managed)": [0.92, 0.88]
  "PostgreSQL": [0.95, 0.93]
  "Kafka (managed)": [0.86, 0.72]
  "Terraform": [0.90, 0.80]
  "OpenTelemetry": [0.78, 0.55]
  "Service mesh": [0.55, 0.30]
  "Self-managed Elasticsearch": [0.18, 0.62]
  "Oracle DB": [0.12, 0.70]
  "Jenkins": [0.20, 0.45]
  "Nomad": [0.60, 0.08]
  "DuckDB (analytics)": [0.62, 0.12]
Analysis Artifact

Technology Radar

What the organisation has decided to adopt, trial, assess or retire — a decision record about technology choice, not a fashion report.