Skip to content

Alignment Summary

overall_status: partially_aligned critical_issues: 0 high_issues: 3 medium_issues: 3 low_issues: 0

Alignment Findings

  • [MEDIUM] 22 proposed items without progression.
  • Recommendation:
  • [HIGH] AID contains only a placeholder strategic vision and empty sections for current state alignment, focus areas, gaps, principles, and emergent heuristics. This severely limits the ability to assess whether AEM and Architecture Work are aligned with the intended architecture.
  • Recommendation: Populate the AID with meaningful architectural intent, including concrete focus areas, principles, current-state alignment, and risk/issue statements. Ensure AID reflects the actual system evolution captured in AEM.
  • [HIGH] Architecture Work contains a dummy_string item and aw-discovery-ideas-to-life-cas-1 with dummy content. AEM execution summary also counts dummy_string (1). This invalidates the integrity of the Architecture Work Registry and creates false evidence.
  • Recommendation: Remove or properly populate all dummy Architecture Work entries. Clean the registry and ensure all items have valid ids, titles, and governance metadata.
  • [HIGH] AEM evolution map includes '[READY] Initial ADR for Core Orchestration Pipeline' with stage NEXT, but key_architectural_decisions does not contain any ADR for this item. The corresponding Architecture Work (aw-discovery-ideas-to-life-cas-2) is still proposed. The decision is not yet persisted as an ADR.
  • Recommendation: Create and accept the ADR for the core orchestration pipeline, then update AEM stage to DONE or governed state based on the ADR status.
  • [MEDIUM] Multiple AEM evolution map entries include status labels like [READY] and stages like NEXT, but underlying Architecture Work items are still 'proposed'. AEM appears to maintain independent planning state rather than deriving from the Architect Work Registry.
  • Recommendation: Derive AEM stages and readiness flags directly from Architecture Work lifecycle state. Remove any [READY] labels that are not confirmed by the authoritative AW source.
  • [MEDIUM] AEM evolution map and intent_direction describe a clear forward-looking evolution (e.g., Architecture Intelligence Platform, business intent integration, code intelligence). AID contains no focus areas or roadmap, making it impossible to verify that proposed architecture work aligns with the intended strategic direction.
  • Recommendation: Define explicit focus areas and roadmap in AID, derived from AEM intent direction, and ensure all Architecture Work items map to at least one focus area.

Architecture Work Derived

  • [MEDIUM] Too many unprogressed proposals
  • [HIGH] Populate Architecture Intent Document with concrete strategic vision, focus areas, principles, current-state alignment, and risk sections. Update AID to reflect the evolution captured in AEM.
  • [HIGH] Clean Architecture Work Registry by removing dummy_string placeholders and invalid items. Ensure all Architecture Work entries contain valid governance metadata.
  • [HIGH] Create and govern the ADR for the Core Orchestration Pipeline, and update AEM stage to reflect the accepted ADR status.
  • [MEDIUM] Establish a strict derivation mechanism so AEM stages and readiness flags are computed exclusively from Architecture Work lifecycle states. Remove independently maintained planning labels.
  • [MEDIUM] Define AID focus areas and roadmap from AEM intent direction, and map Architecture Work items to those focus areas to ensure end-to-end traceability.