Sub-function
Architecture & Design
Owns design decision work end to end inside Engineering. Runs 3 lines across 17 stations, drains the repeatable share into no shared tower, and holds 3 human gates.
Estate rating
BBB
74 / 100
Agents author the design options and the decision record. Architecture decisions constrain years of future work, so a review board ratifies them.
Agents
8
Lines
3
Units / wk
6,946
Timetable vs actual
7.3h → 8.9h
Cost / unit
$8.80
was $21
Run-rate saving
$4.5M
annualized at this volume
The 8 agents running this sub-function
Grouped by what they are for, not by where they sit. The agent org is process-shaped.
Architecture Orchestrator
Owns the architecture & design lane end to end. Sequences the other agents, holds the timetable, and decides what surfaces to a human.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Chief Architect when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Design Option Agent
Executes the architecture & design step it owns, posts its evidence, and hands the unit to the next stage.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Chief Architect when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Non-functional Requirements Agent
Executes the architecture & design step it owns, posts its evidence, and hands the unit to the next stage.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Chief Architect when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Cost Modeling Agent
Executes the architecture & design step it owns, posts its evidence, and hands the unit to the next stage.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Chief Architect when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Design Review Prep Agent
Executes the architecture & design step it owns, posts its evidence, and hands the unit to the next stage.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates to Chief Architect when the unit falls outside the decision envelope or confidence drops below the floor.
Pattern Compliance Agent
Holds the rules that bind every other agent in architecture & design. Versions them, tests them against live decisions, and blocks work that breaches them.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates on any decision that would breach a live policy version, with the clause cited.
Architecture Strategy Agent
Authors positions on architecture & design. Frames the question, models the options, and writes a recommendation a human can ratify or reject.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates when two options sit inside the confidence band and the evidence cannot separate them.
Architecture & Design Challenger Agent
Adversarial reviewer for architecture & design. Argues the opposite case on every position and flags where the evidence does not carry the claim.
ceiling A2 · escalates to Escalates when a ratified position is still running against a break condition it flagged.
Estate rating breakdown
Seven control dimensions. Judgment readiness runs against autonomy on purpose.
People
What the humans stopped doing, and what they do now.
Redeployed into exception judgment and supplier relationship work.
Lines running in this sub-function
Each line is a workflow. Click a line to walk it station by station.
Strategy positions this sub-function holds
An agent that only executes is a robot. These are the calls it made, the argument against each one, and what would prove it wrong.
Design Decision
Rejectedv4Which parts of architecture & design should deliberately stay human, and how do we defend that against a cost argument?
Hold the ceiling at A2 for architecture & design. Agents author the design options and the decision record. Architecture decisions constrain years of future work, so a review board ratifies them. Raise it only after two consecutive quarters where the override rate stays under five percent and every override has a written cause.
confidence
69%
The challenge — Architecture & Design Challenger Agent
Architecture & Design Challenger Agent argues the recommendation leans on 4 quarters of data from a period with no volume shock. The confidence band overlaps the alternative, and the position does not say what it would take to be wrong. Recorded as a dissent, not a block.
Break conditions
- ·Override rate rises above 7 percent for two consecutive months
- ·Cost per design decision stops falling while volume keeps rising
- ·A control failure in this lane reaches a customer or a regulator
Evidence gaps
- ·No external comparator on a like-for-like unit definition
- ·Exception cases under $15k are sampled, not fully measured
| Alternative considered | Cost | Risk | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hold the current position | $613k run rate | Known and priced. Cedes ground if comparators move faster. | live |
| Raise the ceiling one level now | $599k to build controls | Override rate is 12 percent; raising the ceiling before that settles imports the error into production. | rejected on evidence |
| Move the exception tail to the spine | $732k transition | Loses local context. Rework risk on the cases that are hardest to recover. | under review |
Architecture Strategy Position
In challengev1Where should the autonomy ceiling for architecture & design sit over the next four quarters, and what evidence would justify moving it?
Keep the repeatable design decision volume in the spine and pull the exception tail back into the function. The spine is cheaper per unit; the tail is where the context that prevents rework actually sits.
confidence
84%
The challenge — Architecture & Design Challenger Agent
Architecture & Design Challenger Agent argues the recommendation leans on 4 quarters of data from a period with no volume shock. The confidence band overlaps the alternative, and the position does not say what it would take to be wrong. Recorded as a dissent, not a block.
Break conditions
- ·Override rate rises above 16 percent for two consecutive months
- ·Cost per design decision stops falling while volume keeps rising
- ·A comparator publishes a materially lower unit cost on a like-for-like basis
Evidence gaps
- ·No independent test of the control evidence behind the touchless rate
| Alternative considered | Cost | Risk | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hold the current position | $736k run rate | Known and priced. Cedes ground if comparators move faster. | live |
| Raise the ceiling one level now | $986k to build controls | Override rate is 14 percent; raising the ceiling before that settles imports the error into production. | rejected on evidence |
| Move the exception tail to the spine | $194k transition | Loses local context. Rework risk on the cases that are hardest to recover. | under review |
Architecture & Design Operating Position
Draftv1Should design decision work stay in the shared transaction spine, or come back inside the function where the context lives?
Redesign the lane around exception density rather than volume. Volume is already absorbed; the cost that remains is concentrated in a small share of design decision cases that no current agent resolves without a human.
confidence
75%
The challenge — Architecture & Design Challenger Agent
Architecture & Design Challenger Agent argues the recommendation leans on 2 quarters of data from a period with no volume shock. The confidence band overlaps the alternative, and the position does not say what it would take to be wrong. Recorded as a dissent, not a block.
Break conditions
- ·Override rate rises above 7 percent for two consecutive months
- ·Cost per design decision stops falling while volume keeps rising
- ·A control failure in this lane reaches a customer or a regulator
Evidence gaps
- ·No external comparator on a like-for-like unit definition
- ·Exception cases under $29k are sampled, not fully measured
| Alternative considered | Cost | Risk | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hold the current position | $68k run rate | Known and priced. Cedes ground if comparators move faster. | live |
| Raise the ceiling one level now | $788k to build controls | Override rate is 4 percent; raising the ceiling before that settles imports the error into production. | rejected on evidence |
| Move the exception tail to the spine | $661k transition | Loses local context. Rework risk on the cases that are hardest to recover. | under review |
Policy register
The rules the agents above are bound by. Version, owner, approver, and the agents each rule constrains.
| Ref | Rule | Scope | Owner agent | Approved by | Version | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EN2-POL-200 | Architecture & Design Decision Envelope Agents in this lane may act without a human when the design decision sits inside the stated value, risk and confidence envelope. Outside it, the unit holds at a gate with a named approver and a running clock. binds 4 agents · LATAM · US | envelope | Pattern Compliance Agent | Chief Architect | v5.8 | Active |
| EN2-POL-201 | Architecture & Design Evidence Standard Every autonomous decision writes inputs, the rule version applied, the model and prompt version, the output and a reversal path. An action with no evidence record is treated as a control failure, not a fast decision. binds 4 agents · APAC | evidence | Pattern Compliance Agent | Chief Architect | v1.6 | Active |