Method
How the Review works.
The Review starts with the question you need answered, checks the relevant information and explains what to address first. What remains unclear stays visible.
This page explains how Depthics conducts a Business Architecture Review.
From question to recommended next steps.
- 01
Question
Define the business question and decision.
- 02
Information
Review relevant records and what people report.
- 03
Possible causes
Consider other explanations before recommending a change.
- 04
Checking the findings
Check contradictions, missing information and limitations.
- 05
Findings
State what the available information supports.
- 06
Next steps
Recommend what to address first and how to check it.
The information behind a finding.
The Review distinguishes source material from the conclusions drawn from it. The detailed terms remain available below.
See the terms used in a Review
Information sources
- 01Direct quantitative evidence
- 02Direct documentary evidence
- 03Observed process evidence
- 04Corroborated testimony
- 05Single-source testimony
- 06Management claim
- 07External evidence
- 08Missing or inaccessible evidence
How findings are described
- Claim
- A statement that still needs assessment.
- Interpretation
- Meaning assigned to observed material.
- Contradiction
- Material that does not fit another claim or source.
- Causal hypothesis
- A testable explanation, not an established fact by default.
- Finding
- A supported conclusion within declared scope.
- Recommendation
- A proposed decision or action based on findings.
- Confidence
- The strength of support for a conclusion.
- Limitation
- A constraint on what can safely be concluded.
Check the findings before the report is final.
When a record and an account do not match, the difference stays visible. It is checked against other sources and possible causes rather than averaged into a convenient answer.
You can flag factual errors and provide missing information before the report is finalised. We consider those corrections while keeping the conclusions independent.
Participant information is protected.
Participant protection is agreed for each engagement, including identity separation, confidential follow-up, withdrawal handling and the treatment of protected allegations. This public site is not the place to share that information.
A person owns the conclusion.
A person reviews the information, checks the findings and makes the final decisions about conclusions and recommendations.