01 · Mental model
A roadmap label is not implementation evidence
Current-state architecture should name the exact runtime, model integration, storage, skills, tools, policies, traces, evaluations, and deployment controls that are working now. Future-state architecture should show upgrade triggers, dependencies, risks, and acceptance evidence—not merely more product logos.
This separation protects leadership decisions, security review, and delivery planning from accidental overclaiming. It also makes technical debt and missing controls visible without diminishing the value already delivered.
02 · Visual explanation
03 · Compare and decide
Communicate architecture honestly
| Decision lens | Current state | Future state |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | Implemented and verified behavior | Target behavior with trigger and dependency |
| Evidence | Code, tests, trace, artifact, review | Acceptance criteria and planned validation |
| Technology | Exact version and responsibility | Candidate choice with decision condition |
| Risk | Known limits and safe failure | New trust boundaries and migration risk |
04 · Cybersecurity example
Adding durable orchestration
The current SDK loop works, but long-running reviews need resume and human approval after days.
Measure failed resumptions and manual coordination.
Define durable-state and approval requirements.
Evaluate graph or workflow engines against those requirements.
Migrate one bounded workflow with rollback.
Outcome: The future technology is adopted because a proven operational trigger appeared.
05 · What to remember
The 60-second recall
Separate implemented facts from roadmap intent visually and verbally.
Every new layer needs an upgrade trigger and acceptance evidence.
Future state should reduce a measured limitation, not decorate the architecture.
Teach-back prompt: Explain this concept to a teammate using the diagram, then name one failure mode and the control that stops it.
06 · Questions people ask
FAQ
07 · Primary sources