Most architecture reviews that go badly go badly for the same reason: the team
arrives with a good design and an incomplete story. The reviewers spend the
hour discovering gaps instead of discussing trade-offs, and everyone books a
second meeting.
This is what I'd tell any team preparing for one. None of it is specific to a
company; it's what reviewers everywhere are trying to find out.
📐 Diagram — Review flow: pre-read, review, recommendations, target-state document, build (see it in the original)
1. Meet the entry criteria
Before anyone looks at a diagram, reviewers want five facts. If any are
missing, that's the first thing they'll ask about.
| Bring | Why they ask |
|---|---|
| The business need and a short executive summary | Every trade-off is judged against what the system is for. |
| The proposed architecture | Obviously — but as diagrams, not prose (see below). |
| Whether it's regulated | Changes the controls, the evidence and sometimes the region. |
| The data classification | Drives encryption, access, retention and logging. |
| The business criticality | Drives availability targets and whether DR is needed at all. |
2. Bring diagrams reviewers can read
A good diagram answers questions before they're asked. Draw it in your cloud
provider's reference-architecture style, number the steps of the main flow,
and show the boundaries: internet, your company, on-premises, other clouds,
partners and SaaS; accounts, regions, networks, availability zones and
subnets; devices and users.
One diagram can't show everything. I ask for four:
- The core solution — the request and data flow, numbered.
- Build and deploy — the pipeline, from commit to production.
- Availability, backup and recovery — what fails over to where.
- The vendor or partner lifecycle, if there is one — who ships updates and how they arrive.
There's more on this in Diagrams and decision records reviewers trust.
3. Cover the cross-cutting concerns
These are the topics teams leave out, and each one is a reason to be sent back.
Put an answer to every row on a page or a diagram.
| Concern | The question behind it |
|---|---|
| Infrastructure as code | Can the whole thing be rebuilt from a repository? |
| CI/CD | What happens on every commit? |
| IAM, per component | What can each piece do, and nothing more? |
| Secrets | Where are they, and do they rotate? |
| App configuration | Where does it live, and how does it change safely? |
| Logs, metrics, alarms | Who finds out when it breaks? |
| Backups | What's backed up, how often, and has a restore been tested? |
| Self-healing | What recovers without a human? |
| Disaster recovery | Recovery time and point objectives, and how you'd meet them. |
| Versioning | APIs, schemas, artefacts. |
| Audit | What evidence exists, and where? |
| Cost | Including idle cost and data transfer. |
4. Mark every service's status
If your organisation keeps a list of approved cloud services, mark each service
on the diagram as approved, approved with conditions, not approved
or not yet requested, and bring a list of the gaps. It turns a vague worry
("are we allowed to use that?") into a tracked action.
5. Justify anything that isn't managed
Reviewers will push anything that isn't fully managed and pay-per-use up the
ladder: servers toward containers, containers toward serverless, custom code
toward a managed service. That's fine — sometimes there's a real reason. But
come ready to show you understand your workload in detail: its traffic shape,
its state, its runtime, its limits. "We've always run it on a VM" is not a reason.
6. Leave with decisions, not just notes
- Keep a shared parking lot for questions nobody can answer in the room, and a chat channel for follow-ups, so the meeting doesn't stall.
- Expect recommendations in two tiers: the primary target, and an interim step you can ship now on the way there.
- Once you've picked an option, write the target-state architecture document and get it approved before you build. Come back only when something significant changes.
- Record the big choices as architecture decision records.
- Store every artefact, versioned, in one predictable place linked to the ticket that tracks the work.
Key point: The more completely your diagrams and documents capture the agreed
architecture, the more likely it is that the thing that gets built matches it.
That's the whole point of the exercise.
Before you send the invite
- ☐ Executive summary, business need, regulation, data classification, criticality
- ☐ Core, CI/CD, availability/DR and (if relevant) vendor diagrams, numbered and bounded
- ☐ An answer for every cross-cutting concern in the table above
- ☐ Every service marked with its approval status; gaps listed
- ☐ A reason for everything that isn't managed and pay-per-use
- ☐ A cost estimate with idle cost and data transfer
- ☐ The review checklist answered
Originally published at brianpfeil.com, part of a series of cloud architecture guides drawn from the reviews I run.
