View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Decision Making Red Teaming |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | For strategic decisions with high reach, agreement and gut feeling are often not enough. Red teaming brings deliberate opposition into the situation and tests where a plan breaks under real counterarguments. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 45-60 min | 1-4 h | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 2-8 | 3-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Challenge Findings, Risk Register, Mitigation Plan | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | RiskDecisionSensemaking | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |