1. Question Set Name: Reviewing Project Development
2. Purpose: Supporting Development
3. Stakeholders and Concerns: Analysts, Developers, Managers
4. Questions	4a. Respondents	4b. Expected Answers	4c. Criticality
1. Are design decisions represented in a clear and unambiguous manner with rationale? Are there any stakeholder viewpoints that are missing? Does the architecture comply with industry-specific ethical regulations, including principles such as fairness, autonomy, confidentiality, privacy, informed consent, and non-maleficence?	All Stakeholders	Yes/no, but elaborate as necessary.	Questions that intend to reveal any incompleteness or misunderstanding in the AD are the most critical.
1. Does the AD identify key decisions and design rationale? Are naming conventions consistent throughout the document? Are the views consistent with each other? Does the AD articulate “open decisions” deferred to implementation?	Analysts	Yes/No
1. Can you identify applicable architectural constraints, rules, principles, styles, patterns, etc. on units or their aggregation? Can you navigate from an implementation unit to its associated requirements (formal, derived, quality, performance and design constraints)? Can you determine what is likely to change and how it impacts your design? Can you tell how solid each decision is?	Developers	Yes/no, but elaborate as necessary.
1. Can you Identify the full set of implementation units (elements to be implemented)? Can you determine development dependencies between implementation units? Does the AD overconstrain the stakeholders(e.g developers)? Can you determine which units require development resources?	Project Manager	YES/NO and provide explanation as to how effectively the documentation allows for stakeholders to implement the architecture.
5. Advice The review should be opened with the questions for all stakeholders, before separating and asking the stakeholder specific questions to the relevant stakeholders.

1. Are design decisions represented in a clear and unambiguous manner with rationale?

   Yes.

2. Are there any stakeholder viewpoints that are missing?

   Not missing.

3. Does the architecture comply with industry-specific ethical regulations, including principles such as fairness, autonomy, confidentiality, privacy, informed consent, and non-maleficence?

   Yes.

1. Does the AD identify key decisions and design rationale?

   Yes.

2. Are naming conventions consistent throughout the document?

   Yes.

3. Are the views consistent with each other?

   Yes.

4. Does the AD articulate “open decisions” deferred to implementation?

   Yes.

1. Can you identify applicable architectural constraints, rules, principles, styles, patterns, etc. on units or their aggregation?

   Yes.

2. Can you navigate from an implementation unit to its associated requirements (formal, derived, quality, performance and design constraints)?

   No. For the Component View, define better data travel between components.

3. Can you determine what is likely to change and how it impacts your design?

   Yes.

4. Can you tell how solid each decision is?

   Yes.

1. Can you Identify the full set of implementation units (elements to be implemented)?

   Yes.

2. Can you determine development dependencies between implementation units?

   Yes.

3. Does the AD overconstrain the stakeholders(e.g developers)?

   No.

4. Can you determine which units require development resources?

   Yes.

1. Are design decisions represented in a clear and unambiguous manner with rationale?

   Yes.

2. Are there any stakeholder viewpoints that are missing?

   No, all viewpoints are there.

3. Does the architecture comply with industry-specific ethical regulations, including principles such as fairness, autonomy, confidentiality, privacy, informed consent, and non-maleficence?

   Yes.

1. Does the AD identify key decisions and design rationale?

   Yes.

2. Are naming conventions consistent throughout the document?

   Yes.

3. Are the views consistent with each other?

   Yes.

4. Does the AD articulate “open decisions” deferred to implementation?

   Yes.

1. Can you identify applicable architectural constraints, rules, principles, styles, patterns, etc. on units or their aggregation?

   Yes.

2. Can you navigate from an implementation unit to its associated requirements (formal, derived, quality, performance and design constraints)?

   No.

3. Can you determine what is likely to change and how it impacts your design?

   Yes.

4. Can you tell how solid each decision is?

   Yes.

1. Can you Identify the full set of implementation units (elements to be implemented)?

   Yes.

2. Can you determine development dependencies between implementation units?

   Yes.

3. Does the AD overconstrain the stakeholders(e.g developers)?

   No.

4. Can you determine which units require development resources?

   Yes.

The two reviews of the architecture package show significant agreement, with only one main difference between them. Both reviews indicate that the design decisions are clear and unambiguous, all necessary stakeholder viewpoints are included, and the architecture complies with standards. Analysts consistently agreed that the architecture document identifies key decisions, maintains consistent naming conventions, ensures views are aligned, and articulates deferred decisions effectively.

Developers in both reviews confirmed that they could identify applicable architectural constraints, understand likely changes, and evaluate the solidity of decisions. However, in Review 1, they flagged a specific issue: the need for better definition of data travel between components in the Component View. This feedback is absent from Review 2, indicating that the issue was overlooked.

Feedback from the project managers was identical across both reviews. They confirmed that implementation units are fully identified, development dependencies are clear, stakeholders are not overconstrained, and the resource requirements for each unit are determinable.

In summary, the consistency across most areas reflects strong confidence in the architecture. However, the actionable critique from Review 1 regarding the Component View highlights a potential area for improvement that should be addressed.