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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Smoke Test |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | When demand only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 15-45 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-5 Tage | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 1-3 | 3-20 Reviewer | Nutzertraffic | Nutzertraffic |
Formatsame | Async | Async | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |