Close findings with evidence rather than status changes
What This Concept Is
A review finding connects an architectural claim to a possible consequence and a defined closure test. Closure means the agreed criterion was met and checked. Risk acceptance is a separate decision that records who accepted the remaining exposure, its scope and its expiry or reconsideration trigger.
Why It Matters Here
Review meetings often produce “add retries” or “improve monitoring.” These are proposed actions, not demonstrated risk reduction. A retry can even create duplicate effects. The closure rule should test the consequence the review was trying to prevent.
Concrete Example
Finding R1: after a committed reservation loses its reply, the client retry may allocate capacity twice. The owner proposes a retry key. Closure requires a trace with response loss after commit, a concurrent duplicate, a different payload under the same key and a restart. Assert the documented effect and response behavior, including the retention boundary. Merely showing that the endpoint accepts the header does not close R1.
Finding R2: “I prefer events to synchronous calls” lacks a scenario and consequence. Ask for the constraint it addresses. It may become a valid availability or latency concern, or remain a preference. Do not assign it blocking status solely because the reviewer is senior.
Common Confusion / Misconception
A high-impact uncertainty can justify delaying a choice without proof that a defect already exists. Conversely, a numerical risk score is a prioritization aid, not objective certainty. A documented risk acceptance does not make the unsafe condition disappear or satisfy a mandatory integrity gate.
How To Use It
Record finding ID, claim, evidence, consequence, affected scenario, priority rationale, owner, target date and closure criterion. Track open, evidence submitted, verified closed, explicitly accepted or reopened states. Give reviewers access to the evidence and record who checked it. Do not close your own disputed claim solely by changing its status.
Check Yourself
Why is “implemented retries” insufficient? When is a preference a risk? What must be retained when an accepted risk later causes an incident? Which conditions require reopening a previously closed finding?
Mini Drill or Application
Rewrite three vague findings into falsifiable closure tests. Give one a changed dependency version and decide whether its old evidence still applies. Separate accepted exposure from verified mitigation and identify who can authorize each.
Read This Only If Stuck
Fundamentals of Software Architecture and SEI's ATAM report for scenario-driven architectural analysis. The lightweight exercise is ATAM-informed, not a claim to have conducted a full formal ATAM evaluation.