Focused second opinion
Architecture Peer Review
An independent view before the next commitment.
Receive a senior conclusion on one software or AI architecture decision. The review tests the evidence and alternatives, explains material risks and sets out the recommended conditions for proceeding.
What you receive
The result of this engagement.
A principal-owned conclusion on one architecture decision, with material findings, alternatives and conditions for proceeding.
- A concise architecture review with evidence, assumptions and material findings.
- A recommendation with alternatives, trade-offs and conditions for proceeding.
- A principal-led decision discussion and clear next actions.
A defined engagement
One decision. A defined review.
- Coverage
- One proposed or existing software or AI architecture decision, its alternatives and material assumptions. Agree the question and evidence boundary before work starts.
- Inputs
- The relevant design, proposal or existing-system evidence, business constraints and participation from the owners who can clarify the context.
- Completion
- A written conclusion and principal-led readout covering material findings, alternatives, conditions and next actions. The conclusion applies to the agreed question.
When this helps
Recognize the situation.
- You are about to approve a design, vendor proposal or significant technical direction.
- Your team needs a senior second opinion on one software or AI design choice, integration or technical direction.
- An existing product faces a specific change, integration or scale decision.
How the work unfolds
Evidence appropriate to the question.
Frame the question
Agree the decision, relevant constraints and material assumptions.
Challenge the architecture
Review the agreed evidence, explore failure modes and trade-offs, and test the rationale with the relevant owners.
Explain the judgment
Present the material strengths, risks, omissions and recommended conditions for proceeding.
Scope & responsibility
Agree the depth. Keep the boundaries clear.
Scope of the engagement
A focused review may be document-led. A live-system question can need selected code or operating evidence. Whole-system investigation belongs in a deeper Diagnostic or readiness scope.
Appropriate reliance
A focused opinion does not establish whole-system production readiness, complete security coverage or regulatory compliance. The conclusion applies to the question and evidence examined.
The agreed engagement sets the coverage, deliverables, responsibilities, timing and fees. Changes to that scope are agreed explicitly.
We agree who engages us, disclose prior involvement and define the appropriate independence description for the engagement.
Practical questions
Before engaging us.
How is this different from the Diagnostic?
Peer Review answers a clearly defined architecture question. The Diagnostic investigates the wider system, its interacting risks and the direction needed across several architecture concerns.
Can you review another firm's design?
Yes, within an agreed scope and access arrangement. The review focuses on the design evidence and decision, with the contracting party and appropriate reliance made explicit.
Related work
Related architecture contributions
Each contribution is available as a standalone service when the evidence and scope support it.
What is the decision you need to make?
Share the situation and the intended commitment. We will establish whether this scope fits.