C.32.ACS:11 - SoTA-Echoing
These rows document how source practice contributes to criteria-row fields, use-class rules, and receiving-pattern boundaries in C.32.ACS.
| Source to inspect | Why this source is load-bearing here | Transfer into ACS | Concrete ACS mutation | Blocked overread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FPF source presentation ТриПрототипаТриОшибки (2022-03-26) | The presentation distinguishes eval from test and requires characteristic cards, scale procedures, fair comparison, explicit indicatorization, hard constraints, optimization goals, and risk signals. | Put characteristic rows and use classes before any ACE eval program or explicit comparison. | ACS row shape carries use class, scale form, current reading or no-reading reason, proxy risk, protected counter-characteristics, receiving use, and source-return condition. | An eval, test, dashboard, score, or hard constraint is not the architecture characteristic or project criterion by itself. |
ISO/IEC 25010:2023 (https://www.iso.org/standard/78176.html) and SQuaRE quality-model practice | Current standard source for product quality vocabulary and measurement context. | Use standards as source catalogue material that must be rebound to the described holon, bearer, scale, and use class. | ACS separates source catalogue, HCS starter pack, draft project criteria rows, optimization indicators, monitored guardrails, and context-only rows. | A standard quality-model characteristic is not automatically an FPF project criterion, scale row, eval program, or holon ontology. |
Richards and Ford, Fundamentals of Software Architecture, 2nd ed. (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/fundamentals-of-software/9781098175504/) | Current practitioner line treats architecture characteristics as criteria for success, trade-off analysis, scope, and governance. | Criteria rows must be admitted and typed before synthesis, residual optimization, measurement, or governance claims. | ACS rows supply the criteria consumed by C.32, C.32.MLAO, and later patterns for the next questions. | A broad architecture-characteristic list is not a project criteria set. |
Ford, Richards, Sadalage, and Dehghani, Software Architecture: The Hard Parts (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-architecture-the/9781492086888/) | Mature practitioner line for least-worst trade-offs among competing architecture characteristics. | Keep explicit protected losses; explicit comparison belongs to A.19.CPM when comparison is being made. | ACS requires use class, proxy risk, protected counter-characteristics, and downstream comparison boundary. | No single criterion or local gain may dominate without naming the losses it can hide. |
Ford, Parsons, Kua, and Sadalage, Building Evolutionary Architectures, 2nd ed. (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/building-evolutionary-architectures/9781492097532/), Software Architecture Metrics (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-architecture-metrics/9781098112226/), and C.32.ACE | Current practitioner line for guided change and repeatable eval over architecture characteristics. | Restore source-side fitness-function wording as eval programs over declared ACS rows. | Row shape has evalProgramRefs? and names ACE for eval-program construction after the row exists. | An eval program or metric is not a characteristic kind, project criterion, selected architecture, or decision. |
Current FPF C.25 and E.13 | Local receiving law for composite quality families and proxy-for-value drift. | Keep Q-Bundle structure and proxy repair outside ACS while carrying the needed links. | Row shape includes endpointShape, qBundleRef?, proxyRisk, and protectedCounterCharacteristicRefs; proxy drift requires E.13. | A composite quality family is not one scalar row, and a convenient indicator is not the declared architecture concern. |
ATAM lineage and ATRAF 2025 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00688) | Mature and current architecture-evaluation practice binds quality attributes to scenarios, trade-offs, sensitivity points, risks, and repeated refinement. | Admit a quality word as a project row with bearer, scale, polarity, counter-characteristics, and receiving use before it affects synthesis. | Explicit comparison belongs to A.19.CPM; composite quality bundles belong to C.25; ACS retains row preparation. | Scenario analysis and trade-off vocabulary do not compare or choose candidates until the receiving comparison, selection, choice, or decision pattern is being used. |
For the role-to-result construction in §4.2, Crawley, Cameron and Selva, System Architecture, Global Edition (2016), chapter 11, supplies a developed systems treatment of beneficiary, operator and supplier interests, benefits, goals and constraints. Adapt: recover these distinct interests before selecting structure and observation. Richards and Ford, Fundamentals of Software Architecture, second edition (2025), chapters 4–6, supplies the software branch of structural relevance; its non-domain criterion is not generalized to all bearers. Ciceri et al., Software Architecture Metrics, finished May 2022 edition, chapters 7 and 10, supplies the goal/question/measure and collection-cost connection. Together these contributions support §4.1’s use-relative architecture condition; they do not establish a universal catalogue or arithmetic over ordinal preferences. Reopen the transfer when the target bearer, domain or decision cannot be represented by that connection.
Source-currentness boundary. Use each source row only for the ACS field, use-class rule, or receiving-pattern boundary named in that row. Recheck the row when a named standard, book edition, source presentation, FPF pattern for the next question, or current architecture-evaluation line changes the transferred move. If the project wants measurement, eval-program design, comparison, selection, selected-set result declaration, actual publication, local choice, evidence, assurance, or decision use, leave ACS and open the pattern for the next question.