View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 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. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |