View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Engineering Hypothesis-Driven Troubleshooting |  Architecture C4 Model |  Decision Making RAPID |  Architecture Request for Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When systems fail unexpectedly, spontaneous attempts often produce more noise than insight. Hypothesis-driven Troubleshooting translates symptoms into testable assumptions and makes troubleshooting learnable. | The C4 Model makes a system legible across several resolution levels, from context down to code. It suits situations where different audiences need to understand the same architecture from different altitudes. | In complex management decisions, clarity is often missing about who recommends, who agrees, and who makes the decision. RAPID creates this assignment and stabilizes decisions across several levels. | 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 | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-240 min | 1-4 h | 45-90 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung |
Participantsdifferent | 1-6 | 1-5 | 3-12 | 3-20 Reviewer |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Hypothesis Log, Test Plan, Evidence Notes, Diagnosis Summary | Context Diagram, Container Diagram, Component Diagram | RAPID Role Map, Recommendation, Decision Log | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets |
Tagsno overlap | TroubleshootingProblem solvingDiagnosis | ArchitectureCommunicationVisualization | DecisionRolesGovernance | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance |