Domains and service contracts
We identify hidden boundaries, manual agreements, weak API contracts and areas where changes break nearby services.
- domain model
- service contracts
- API contracts
We review domains, service contracts, integrations, ownership, technical debt, SLA/SLO, RPO/RTO and production readiness. The team receives a risk map, business solution, target model and change roadmap.
We focus on places where the system loses control: legacy, service boundaries, ownership, integrations and readiness for production changes.
We identify hidden boundaries, manual agreements, weak API contracts and areas where changes break nearby services.
We split technical debt into real risks: SLA/SLO, RPO/RTO, releases, security, support cost and growth blockers.
We form the target model, acceptance criteria, ownership and modernization roadmap that can be moved into backlog.
The result must be useful for CEO, CTO, engineering team and vendors.
Architecture risk map with impact on SLA, releases, security, change cost and growth.
Target model for domains, integrations, ownership and service contracts without excess detail.
Change plan with quick wins, dependencies, release gates, acceptance criteria and production readiness.
We move from business risk to technical decision, not the other way around.
Short answers about scope, outcome and delivery.
Technical audit is broader; architecture audit goes deeper into domains, service contracts, ownership, legacy and target architecture.
Yes. The roadmap can move into delivery control with release gates, runbook, ownership and production readiness.
No. We can start with interviews, diagrams, read-only data, logs, metrics and documentation.
Describe the system, legacy pain, integrations and change goal. We will suggest architecture audit scope.