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 |  Delivery RAID Log |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Assumption 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. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |