Sole public launch service
Business Architecture Review
Understand the structure behind one consequential business question.
A Review examines how business model, decisions, responsibilities, money, information, workflows, systems, people and risk interact around one defined question. The output is a written explanation of what is happening, why it may be happening, and what leadership should decide or change first.
Use the review when local fixes are no longer enough.
- 01
the same operational or management problem keeps returning;
- 02
growth has increased friction, delay or dependency;
- 03
leadership receives conflicting explanations;
- 04
a transition, restructuring, succession or investment decision needs a stronger basis;
- 05
the cost of another local fix is becoming material.
One question. Connected parts of the company.
The proposal defines the consequential question, unit of analysis, included systems, participants, evidence boundary and exclusions. Only the domains needed to answer that question are activated.
- 01
Purpose, strategy, and priorities;
- 02
Governance, ownership, and decision rights;
- 03
Operating model, workflows, and handoffs;
- 04
Information, systems, and management visibility;
- 05
Financial resilience and resource logic;
- 06
Roles, capability, and founder dependency;
- 07
Continuity, concentration, and systemic risk;
- 08
Growth architecture and organisational change;
Work inside a larger organisation may be considered only when one unit, value stream or decision system can be clearly bounded. This is not whole-enterprise coverage.
Evidence first. Clarification where it adds depth.
Documents, data and observed processes are reviewed against the agreed question. Clarification questions by email or call, interviews and walkthroughs focus on evidence gaps, contradictions, exceptions and possible causes.
Eight evidence classes
- 01
Direct quantitative evidence
- 02
Direct documentary evidence
- 03
Observed process evidence
- 04
Corroborated testimony
- 05
Single-source testimony
- 06
Management claim
- 07
External evidence
- 08
Missing or inaccessible evidence
See the reasoning and the report it produces.
Observed problem
The monthly management report arrived after the pricing decision it was meant to support.
Observation
Evidence
Dated documentary evidence, an observed process walkthrough and corroborated accounts show the timing and handoffs.
Evidence basis
Contradiction
The written process names one owner, while the actual approval path uses another.
Contradiction
Alternative explanation
The delay may be caused by staffing capacity or by the reporting software.
Alternative hypothesis
Causal hypothesis
Unclear decision rights at the finance and operations handoff may be delaying the report.
Causal hypothesis
Confidence
Moderate.
Confidence
Limitation
The review covers one reporting cycle and does not include a complete transaction-level sample.
Material limitation
Decision
Assign one owner and one escalation rule. Test the next reporting cycle. Consider replacing the software only if the delay remains.
Decision
Verification
The next report arrives inside the decision window with fewer handoff exceptions.
Verification condition
Business Architecture Review contents
- 01
executive decision brief;
- 02
scope, evidence coverage and limitations;
- 03
business-architecture map;
- 04
findings, risks and recommendations with confidence and traceability;
- 05
contradictions, unknowns and alternative explanations;
- 06
staged action architecture and verification conditions;
- 07
decision readout and agreed follow-up.
A useful review depends on access and a clear boundary.
Client
- 01
name an accountable sponsor;
- 02
agree the decision and scope;
- 03
provide relevant evidence and access;
- 04
protect participants from retaliation;
- 05
respond to factual review within the agreed window;
- 06
decide what to do with the final report.
Depthics
- 01
preserve the agreed scope and evidence boundary;
- 02
separate evidence, interpretation and conclusion;
- 03
record contradictions and limitations;
- 04
protect restricted participant information;
- 05
challenge findings before release;
- 06
state when a question cannot be answered.
Questions before a review conversation
- What happens first?
- A review conversation establishes the business question, the decision it affects and whether a Review is appropriate. If it is, the proposal defines the initial scope and commercial terms.
- How is scope agreed?
- The Charter names the decision, unit of analysis, included systems, participants, evidence boundary, exclusions and release conditions.
- Who needs to participate?
- The participant plan includes roles that can provide relevant evidence or a different view that may change the answer. A Review does not require every employee to participate.
- What evidence may be required?
- Evidence may include reports, decisions, process records, system extracts, policies, agreements, operating data, walkthroughs and relevant external material. The request is limited to the agreed question.
- How are participant responses protected?
- Confidentiality terms and their limits are stated before participation. Identity access is restricted. Reports use aggregation and reidentification review. Absolute anonymity is not promised.
- Can the Review be used inside a larger organisation?
- Yes, when one unit, value stream or decision system can be bounded clearly. The result does not represent the whole enterprise.
- Does AI decide what the report says?
- No. Question paths are designed in advance. People review evidence, test explanations and make final judgements.
- How are timing and price set?
- The proposal sets both after the question, scope and access are understood. They depend on the question, participant coverage, evidence condition, included systems, confidentiality, urgency and review work required.
Bring the business question, the decision it affects and what has already been tried. The review conversation decides whether the Review is appropriate and what must be scoped before a proposal.