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 Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |  Agile Specification by Example |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 | 3-6 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | SensemakingDecisionRationale |