Architecture decision retrieval map

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will engineering organizations with many services use it to solve "teams repeat rejected designs because decisions are buried"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting.
4. Measure, then decide. Track retrieval accuracy and repeated discussion time. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Costed pilot: One repository with explicit document permissions. Start with one buyer organization and a bounded set of representative inputs. Implement the first two modules: index decision contexts; link superseded records. Support the third task through an assisted review queue: match design questions. Handle the remaining required functions manually until validated. Include input upload, source references, user correction, a reviewer approval step and export of cited architecture decision brief. Authentication, account isolation, deletion controls and basic operational logging are included. Specialized production certification, live write integrations and broader rollout are not included unless explicitly stated.

After the MVP. After paying customers repeatedly accept cited architecture decision brief, automate surface rejected alternatives; flag outdated assumptions; export cited briefs. Add one tested read integration, reusable customer configuration and scheduled repeat delivery. Increase supported formats or teams only when evaluation cases and reviewer capacity cover the new scope. One repository with explicit document permissions.

What the build depends on. Permission-filtered retrieval, document versioning, a question evaluation set, staff handoff and a source update process. Reliability depends on source quality and scope. Obtain representative authorized inputs, an agreed review rubric and a buyer-side owner. Specific scope: One repository with explicit document permissions.

Pricing to test

Test USD 500-2,000 setup plus USD 150-600 monthly for one defined source collection and usage allowance. Price multi-location deployments and specialist support separately. Validate willingness to pay; these are hypotheses. For this buyer, package the first sale around index thirty decision records and the defined cited architecture decision brief. Record actual review effort before offering a recurring allowance. The commercial pilot fee is distinct from the platform development budget.

Message to test

Retrieve why a design was chosen and when that reasoning changed. Demonstrate the result with index thirty decision records for engineering organizations with many services. Use a concrete before-and-after example without promising unmeasured savings.

Where to find buyers

Architecture forums and technical documentation teams

Lead magnet

Index thirty decision records

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers from engineering organizations with many services and inspect how they handle teams repeat rejected designs because decisions are buried.
2. Week 2: prepare index thirty decision records using authorized or synthetic material.
3. Week 3: share the demonstration through architecture forums and technical documentation teams and seek one bounded paid pilot.
4. Week 4: measure retrieval accuracy and repeated discussion time, review delivery effort and ask for a repeat purchase. This is a validation schedule, not a promise that the full product can be built in thirty days.

Paid pilot

Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting. Run index thirty decision records and deliver cited architecture decision brief. Compare retrieval accuracy and repeated discussion time with the buyer's current process on comparable cases; include corrections, missed issues and reviewer time. Seek payment and repeat use. Stop or revise the scope if data access, accuracy or unit economics fail.

Success metrics

Retrieval accuracy and repeated discussion time

Retention and expansion

Build repeat use around cited architecture decision brief. Save approved configurations and review decisions with permission, revisit unresolved exceptions and show progress on retrieval accuracy and repeated discussion time. Offer a recurring volume allowance after repeat demand; expand to adjacent tasks only when the buyer asks and delivery quality remains acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

A maintained domain knowledge collection, realistic evaluation questions, useful escalation paths and integrations in the customer’s daily work. For this concept, accumulate permissioned examples and reviewer corrections around retrieve why a design was chosen and when that reasoning changed. The durable asset is reliable task-specific execution and trusted customer configuration, not access to a general-purpose AI model.

Alternatives and positioning

Manual search, static FAQs, general chat tools and support or intranet suites. Position this concept around retrieve why a design was chosen and when that reasoning changed. Compare it against the customer's current process on the same representative task. This is proposed differentiation; no exhaustive competitor study or uniqueness claim has been established.

Main delivery costs

Document ingestion, retrieval and generation, source maintenance, support, evaluation and staff time handling unresolved cases. Initial validation additionally budgets for engineer labeling workshop. Track model usage, storage, reviewer minutes, exception handling and customer support per accepted deliverable.