ARCHITECTURE ASSURANCE LAYER

Turn recommendations into defensible designs.

Requirements. Assumptions. ADRs with alternatives. Validation plans. Residual risk ledgers. Framework coverage across AWS WAF, Azure WAF, GCP CAF, and CSA CCM. Generated automatically — and traceable to the inventory that produced them.

Get started Back to overview

What you get

Seven architect-grade deliverables per assessment.

Requirements and assumptions register

Every requirement traces to an inventory signal or customer answer. Assumptions carry impact-if-false severity. Unknowns are visible, not hidden. Typed by category: business, performance, availability, security, compliance, connectivity, operations.

Architecture Decision Records

Every significant decision exported as an ADR in MADR format — the format endorsed by AWS, Azure, and Google architecture centres. Each record includes decision drivers, alternatives considered, rejection rationale, and confidence level.

Credible alternatives

Primary recommendation alongside alternatives with honest strengths and weaknesses. No straw-man alternatives. Rejection rationale is specific to this assessment, not generic.

Validation plan

Every decision guarded by at least one check. Each check has method (test, evidence review, sign-off), owner role, acceptance criteria, must-complete-by phase, and severity-if-skipped. Organised across compute, network, storage, identity, operations, backup, and platform.

Residual risk ledger

What remains after mitigations. Each risk has severity, business impact, technical impact, monitoring, mitigating checks, and closure method (validation test, evidence document, assumption accepted, or waiver required).

Framework coverage

Decisions and checks tagged against AWS WAF pillars, Azure WAF pillars, GCP CAF categories, CSA CCM domains, MADR, and Nygard. Coverage report shows which controls are addressed directly, partially, or remain open.

Why this matters

An assessment that ends at 'here is the recommended scenario and host count' hasn't yet become a design.

The gap is filled by work that distinguishes competent delivery: requirements documentation, assumptions registers, decision records with alternatives, validation planning, residual risk catalogues. Aurithm produces these artifacts automatically, and every one is grounded in the inventory and the answers you gave. The defensibility score rolls the five dimensions (requirement completeness, assumption exposure, decision rigour, alternative honesty, validation depth) into a single number. Score 80+ is Architecture Review Board-ready. 60s is useful starting material needing architect work. Below 50 signals inventory weakness or scope mismatch.

Scope

What it does — and what it doesn't.

It does

✓Produces typed requirement, assumption, and unknown registers per assessment
✓Exports ADRs in MADR format, one per significant decision
✓Generates credible alternatives with rejection rationale
✓Builds phased validation plans with owners, criteria, and severity
✓Maintains a residual risk ledger with explicit closure methods
✓Tags coverage across six governance frameworks

It doesn't

–Author custom narrative — the LLM writes prose, never originates facts
–Replace a distinguished engineer — it makes their review faster
–Certify the design — the Architecture Review Board does that

Who uses this

Solution architectsDefending recommendations to review boards.

Distinguished engineersReviewing migration designs with all the artifacts.

Security teamsConfirming architectural controls and framework coverage.

Compliance officersSeeing which framework controls the design addresses.

Generate a full assurance package in one click.

Requirements, ADRs, alternatives, validation, risk, and framework coverage — defensible under review-board scrutiny.

Request access