C.32.FAIL:11 - SoTA-Echoing
These rows show how source practice informs C.32.FAIL repair fields, repair families, boundaries, and receiving-pattern exits.
| Source to inspect | Why this source is load-bearing here | Transfer into C.32.FAIL | Effect on C.32.FAIL use | Blocked overread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Current FPF architecture kernel: C.30, C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, C.31, C.32, C.32.MLAO, plus A.6.P and E.10 | Current local law for architecture objects, source-expression recovery, and candidate repair. It prevents failure names from becoming ontology. | Treat a failure cue as repair-entry material until described holon, selected structure, object under stress, and subject pattern are recovered. | ArchitectureRepairCue@Project requires architectureObjectUnderStress, blockedOverread, firstPatternLocator, repairAction, and sourceReturnCondition. | A warning name, source expression, or domain habit is not an architecture kind. |
Parnas information hiding (https://doi.org/10.1145/361598.361623), MOSA and open-systems practice (https://www.cto.mil/sea/mosa/), product-line and platform practice, and the current C.31 source line | Strong architecture lineage for stable boundaries, hidden variation, replacement policy, and interface conformance. | Repair weak-module and false-platform cues by restoring interface behavior, variation slots, substitution policy, conformance expectation, and bounded exceptions. | Repair table rows for Weak module-interface and False platform; worked cases A and B. | Module wording, platform promise, or published interface text does not establish modularity, substitutability, or architecture adequacy. |
ISO 42010:2022 architecture-description practice (https://www.iso.org/standard/74393.html), plus C.30.AD, C.30.ASV, E.17, and E.24.PUB | Current standard and FPF line for distinguishing architecture, architecture description, view, viewpoint, concern, model kind, correspondence, and publication face. | Treat architecture-description artifacts and publication faces as description or publication material until selected-structure repair is recovered. | Repair row Proxy result or description as authority; fields for sourceCueRef? and firstPatternLocator; worked cases D and E. | A description artifact or publication face is not architecture adequacy, evidence sufficiency, or project architecture decision. |
Evolutionary architecture practice (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/building-evolutionary-architectures/9781492097532/), DORA loosely coupled teams, last updated 2025-10-20 (https://dora.dev/capabilities/loosely-coupled-teams/), DORA trunk-based development (https://dora.dev/capabilities/trunk-based-development/), and Team Topologies key concepts (https://teamtopologies.com/key-concepts) | Current practitioner line for changeability, small batches, independent change, dependency reduction, and fast flow. | Use change pain, coordination load, and flow bottlenecks as cues for selected-structure stress while keeping organization relations, local kinds, separate System-classification judgments, assignments, enactor relations, ordinary work or procedure organization, actual Work, independently typed influence sources, transformed-side architecture content, module-interface structures, and direct responsibility relations distinct. | Repair rows Coordination cost displaced by responsibility change, Temporal or control coupling, and Mismatch between architecture influence and transformed-side structure; field sourceReturnCondition; stop rule before decision work. | Fast-flow evidence can guide architecture repair only after it is interpreted as stress on named selected structures; it neither makes an architecture act nor establishes a direct influence or responsibility relation. |
Software Architecture: The Hard Parts (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-architecture-the/9781492086888/), design-space practice (https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18502), architecture-spread research (https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19171), and C.18 and C.19 open-ended search governance | Strong current line for hard trade-offs, dynamic candidate fronts, retained stepping stones, and preserving structurally different alternatives instead of hiding them behind one score. | Repair hidden-single-winner and static-optimum cases by rebuilding candidate palette content before selected-set result declaration, actual publication, local choice, or architecture decision. | Repair rows Hidden single winner and Static optimum; fields for preserved and lost structure through the C.32 palette; receiving-pattern exits follow the claim-specific conditions in §1. | A score, Pareto front, generated winner, retained stepping stone, or workshop favorite is not a selected architecture. |
TRIZ ideality and laws of technical-system evolution, with C.19.1 BLP | Older heuristic line for useful-function consolidation and removing unnecessary bearers, plus FPF scale-amenability discipline for general bearers. | Repair ideality and universal-module shortcuts by turning them into typed C.32 candidates. | Repair rows Ideality shortcut and Universal bearer as adequacy shortcut; anti-pattern rows IdealityAsAdequacyShortcut and UniversalBearerAsAdequacyClaim. | Ideality, fewer parts, or one universal module is not architecture adequacy, scale adequacy, assurance, release, or project architecture decision. |
Multi-objective NAS, hardware-aware co-design, scaling-law practice (https://www.jmlr.org/papers/v20/18-598.html, Sukthanker et al. v3 revised 2025-02-04 at https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18213, Sinha et al. 2024 at https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12403), and C.19.1 BLP | Current ML architecture line makes functional graph search, resource constraints, hardware constraints, and scale-amenability visible as architecture-synthesis pressure. | Repair cases where a functional architecture or universal bearer is admitted without feasible bearers, scale window, or affected characteristics. | Repair row Function with no feasible bearer; anti-pattern row FunctionalGraphNoBearer; worked Show-F. | A functional graph, neural architecture, benchmark result, or scale curve is not architecture adequacy, assurance, release, or project architecture decision. |
MAAD submitted 2025-07-28 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21382), LLM-assisted ADD submitted 2025-06-27 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22688), and model-card or evaluation-drift practice | Current AI-assisted architecture work makes generated alternatives common, while also making evaluation boundary, hallucination, drift, and human oversight concerns that must be declared. | Treat generated outputs and model behavior records as source cues; recover source-side referent, selected structure, architecture-change kind, gain, loss, review boundary, and evidence-decay boundary. | Repair rows Weak module-interface, Evidence jump, and Generated output as authority; worked cases A and D. | A generated or model-bearing artifact does not carry an architecture-adequacy authority relation, evidence sufficiency, assurance, or gate passage. |
Source-currentness boundary. Use each source row only for the repair field, repair row, boundary, or receiving-pattern exit named in that row. Recheck the row when a cited standard, book edition, research result, DORA or Team Topologies page, model-practice source, FPF pattern for the next question, described holon, selected structure, or source cue changes. If the source no longer supports the repair, lower it to background lineage and keep the cue only when the architecture object under stress, blocked overread, repair action, stop condition, and pattern for the next question remain recoverable.