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 Problem Interview |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  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 the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | 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 | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 30-60 min je Interview | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 5-12 Interviews | 2-8 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |