Architecture Reference

Appearance

Architecture Source Map ​

Architecture Source Map Graphics Coverage ​

Primary chapter graphic: System Design Concept Map, System Design Topic Map, Scaling Evolution Pattern, NFR Implementation Map. Accepted graphics: 4. Reviewed non-signal pages: 12. Open graphics in review: 0. QA status lives in graphics audit and visual review ledger.

Corpus pages: p. 1, p. 30, p. 39, p. 57, p. 63-64, p. 68, p. 75, p. 77-78, p. 88, p. 113, p. 132, p. 134, p. 162, p. 182-183, p. 204, p. 225, p. 229, p. 248, p. 258, p. 265, p. 276, p. 279, p. 301, p. 305-307, p. 346, p. 360, p. 363, p. 369-370, p. 375, p. 390 Coverage: 36 pages; low-confidence extraction ranges: p. 1, p. 57, p. 75, p. 132, p. 276, p. 301, p. 305-307, p. 360, p. 363, p. 369-370, p. 375, p. 390

This chapter is part of Marius's owned architecture build corpus. The text routes decisions; durable implementation signal is carried by accepted graphics, reviewed non-signal decisions, and the linked QA audit.

Chapter Visuals ​

Accepted graphics carry the canonical design signal for this chapter. Each selected source page is either accepted as a graphic or explicitly marked non-signal in the source-faithful ledger. Review and QA state live in visual inventory, visual review ledger, and graphics audit.

System Design Concept Map ​

System Design Concept Map

System Design Topic Map ​

System Design Topic Map

NFR Implementation Map ​

NFR Implementation Map

Scaling Evolution Pattern ​

Scaling Evolution Pattern

Open Review Queue ​

  • none

Reviewed Non-Signal Pages ​

  • Architecture Source Map: Queue + Database Map: source p. 360; batch 02; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: RAG + Workflow Map: source p. 279; batch 06; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Database + Replication Map: source p. 64; batch 07; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Cache + RAG Map: source p. 225; batch 09; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Concept Map Map: source p. 132; batch 10; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Cache + RAG Map: source p. 346; batch 10; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Concept Map Map: source p. 375; batch 10; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Cache + RAG Map: source p. 68; batch 11; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Agent + Tool Map: source p. 78; batch 11; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Cookie + HTTP Map: source p. 229; batch 12; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Map Map: source p. 75; batch 13; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json
  • Architecture Source Map: Database + Index Map: source p. 363; batch 24; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json

Use When ​

  • You need to orient a design review, learning path, or system sketch before choosing a concrete component.

Avoid When ​

  • You already have a bounded production defect with a known owner.

Core Model ​

  • Treat the source map as a routing layer. It helps decide which chapter owns the next question and which source pages deserve inspection.
  • Prefer explicit ownership over accidental coupling. Every boundary should say who owns correctness, cost, data, recovery, and change.
  • Use corpus page pointers for inspection, and keep the chapter notes focused on reusable design decisions.

Implementation Guidance ​

  • Start with the user-visible workflow, list the technical domains involved, then route each domain to one chapter and one owner.
  • Write the smallest useful design note: purpose, inputs, outputs, state, failure behavior, observability, and rollback.
  • Choose the first implementation that can be tested against the real workflow without hiding a known production risk.

Tradeoffs ​

  • Maps reduce thrash, but they become stale unless tied to source pointers and coverage checks.
  • Centralization reduces duplicated work but can become a bottleneck when every team needs exceptions.
  • Specialized infrastructure helps at scale, but it must earn its operational cost.

Failure Modes ​

  • The team debates labels instead of clarifying the next decision.
  • The diagram shows boxes but not ownership, retry behavior, data freshness, or user-visible failure.
  • The system has no proof path for the highest-risk assumption.

Decision Checklist ​

  • Name the decision, route it to one primary chapter, and record the corpus pages that informed it.
  • Name the owner, source of truth, timeout, retry policy, and evidence that the path works.
  • Add one regression check for the failure mode most likely to recur.

Neutral Automation Examples ​

  • A product team maps a vague reliability concern to observability, queues, and storage before opening implementation tasks.
  • A neutral internal automation starts with fixtures, then adds credentials, permissions, and production scheduling only after the boundary is tested.
  • A customer-facing workflow keeps irreversible actions behind explicit approval until metrics show it is safe to automate further.