C.32.ADA:11 - SoTA-Echoing
These sources inform the coordinates, value meanings, stop conditions, and repair exits used below.
| Source to inspect | Why this source is load-bearing here | Transfer into ADA | Concrete ADA mutation | Blocked overread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Current FPF E.21 scale discipline | Existing FPF pattern for declared-use evaluation, exact 0 absent through 5 exceptionallyExpressedForDeclaredUse labels, complete coordinates, adjacent-value rationale, and no averaging. | Reuse the value domain and evaluation discipline for architecture decisions without copying pattern-quality coordinates. | ADA requires declared use, complete coordinate set, E.21 value labels with adjacent rationale, no average, and use-specific stop conditions. | E.21 pattern-quality status and coordinates are not architecture-decision adequacy. |
C.32.PAD and C.32.ADR | PAD and ADR define the decision relation and publication projection being evaluated. | Make relation adequacy and projection adequacy separate coordinates. | ADA can say a PAD relation is usable while ADR projection needs repair, or the reverse. | A complete ADR does not make the decision relation adequate. |
ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2022 official standard (https://www.iso.org/standard/74393.html; IEEE page https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/42010/6846/) with the 42010 companion site as secondary reading (https://iso-architecture.org/42010/) | Current official source for architecture descriptions, viewpoints, views, correspondence, and rationale; the companion site is used only as secondary reading. | Add coordinates for affected structure, architecture-description adequacy, and source-return. | ADA identifies C.30.AD and C.30.ASV as subject-pattern locators for weak description assertions. | Architecture-description adequacy does not decide or approve the architecture. |
Ford, Parsons, Kua, and Sadalage, Building Evolutionary Architectures, 2nd ed. (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/building-evolutionary-architectures/9781492097532/) | Current practitioner source for architecture feedback and incremental change under eval-like mechanisms. | Add evolution, reopen, guardrail, and confirmation coordinates. | ADA checks reopen and eval exits before a decision is used for long-running work. | Source-side fitness-function wording is not imported as ADA object naming. |
Ford, Richards, Sadalage, and Dehghani, Software Architecture: The Hard Parts (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-architecture-the/9781492086888/) | Current practitioner source for trade-off analysis under competing characteristics. | Add architecture-characteristic trade-off adequacy and accepted-loss repair. | ADA identifies ACS, ACE, C.16, C.25, C.31, or C.31.ASAP as subject-pattern locators for the exact weak trade-off assertion. | Trade-off discussion is not an assurance claim or governance approval. |
2026 ADR violation-detection research (https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07609) | LLM detection in the study was more accurate for explicit decisions checkable from code than for decisions left implicit or requiring deployment settings or organizational context. | Add confirmation, source-return, method, deployment, and organization refs to adequacy checks when live. | ADA scores confirmation and method docking separately and blocks hidden organizational knowledge from passing as ready. | Automated violation detection is not proof, evidence, assurance, or gate passage. |
Source-currentness boundary. Recheck a source row when FPF evaluation discipline, architecture-decision practice, ADR violation checking, evolutionary-architecture eval practice, or project governance changes a coordinate, value meaning, or repair exit.