C.30:11 - SoTA-Echoing
| Practice or source line | C.30 adoption | Action consequence | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
FPF C.2.1, A.22, C.30.AD, and C.30.ASV multi-view architecture discipline | Current FPF separates actual subject relations, exact selected A.22 structure, direct ArchitectureRelation, bounded claim content, Description episteme, viewpoint, structural view, representation, publication, correspondence, grounding, and source return. | Ask whether the actual relation obtains or the content is modal, then choose the next architecture move before opening heavier description and view records. When architecture-description or traceability use is current, recover correspondence, source pins, description-reliance relations, and source-return conditions. | A tool, notation, model-use structure, view, description, file, list, or publication creates none of the subject-side relation, structure, or truth facts by form. |
| SEI views-and-beyond lineage plus current multi-view practice | Keep module, component-and-connector, runtime interaction, allocation, and placement as separate view pressures. | Do not reduce architecture to module structure or interface relation; use C.30.ASV to test structural-view claims. | View taxonomies are lineage and comparison support, not a second FPF ontology. |
| arXiv:2603.00601 code-space architecture relation-graph work and related code-agent architecture probing benchmarks | Adapt partial-observability probing, typed edge rules, component-boundary rules, invariant-field semantics, uncertainty or unexplored-region reporting, and probe-as-intervention warning. | A generated code relation graph can supply a source relation for an architecture description or structural view only with claim, source, uncertainty, relation semantics, and source return. | Do not mint U.CodeSpace; do not treat probe or benchmark output as architecture adequacy, evidence sufficiency, assurance, or release. |
| Holon-architecture law-like constraint set from the architecture source | Adopt Conway and mirroring as transformer-transformed correspondence pressure through C.32.CONWAY; use other law-like architecture lines only as recognition pressure for selected structures and architecture characteristics. | For Conway or mirroring, recover transformer holon, transformed holon, changing relation, selected structures, affected characteristics, candidate gain, and candidate loss. For other law-like pressure, identify the selected structure and characteristic, then use the pattern that defines or tests the exact architecture, relation, measurement, selected-set, or decision claim. | No law-like slogan is architecture adequacy, decision, evidence sufficiency, assurance, gate passage, or universal architecture ontology by itself. |
| GonzoML neural-network architecture corpus as source example for general architecture-operation language | Adopt practitioner architecture-operation language as general architecture material: structural substitution, relation retargeting, dataflow change, path-selection and gating, memory and cache placement, block and layer substitutions, MoE expert-selection, pruning, distillation, NAS, ablation, and compute, memory, and latency tradeoffs. | Keep source labels as source labels through C.30.STRAT; after recovery, use the language for architecture-description and architecture-view recognition, transformation-flow-structure source relation, module-and-interface repair, scale characterization, candidate move guidance, and decision-context fields. | Neural-network labels, benchmarks, ablations, pruning masks, search outputs, or distillation success do not become FPF ontology, architecture decision, evidence sufficiency, gate passage, assurance, or architecture adequacy by themselves. |
| Platform-engineering, MOSA, and open-systems practice | Adapt open-interface, platform extension-rule, substitution-policy, and conformance-expectation pressure as local architecture boundary discipline. | For an open-interface or platform claim, name the local structure, interface, variation point, substitution policy, pattern for any conformance-evidence claim, migration boundary, update channel, and hardening boundary that change action. | Platform design depends on project, organization, time, and place; there is no universal platform maturity scale or open-label proof. |
| ADR and architecture-knowledge-management practice | Adopt decision-memory pressure only as a project-side decision concern handled outside C.30. | Treat ADR-like material as a publication or decision-description source relation until an architecture decision claim is being made. | ADR is not the project decision itself and not a source of release authorization. |
Deliberate exclusion. SysML v2 is not used as C.30 SoTA or useful lineage. Search prominence, a systems-oriented name, and a long-promoted model-and-diagram program are not evidence that it improves the C.30 practitioner questions. For this comparison it is a historical dead end, not a comparator. Reopen this exclusion only if concrete project evidence changes a C.30 rule, worked case, or practitioner action.