[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-240143-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-240143-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","ads-cheat-cards-design-review-five-reference-cards","ADS Cheat Cards - Design Review - five reference cards","","ADS cheat cards provide a compact, five-part reference for evaluating an architecture by organizing perspectives, quality attributes, governance constraints, compliance scoring, documentation depth, and sustainability quick wins. The material guides teams to assess each tier and attribute across views, explicitly document tradeoffs, and run a structured RAID template covering assumptions, risks, dependencies, and issues with owners and dates. It also defines a compliance scale, overall scoring rule, documentation governance gates, and actionable decisions that make sustainability measurable through operational and design choices.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/","Presentations",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/ads-cheat-cards-design-review-five-reference-cards/240143/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/ads-cheat-cards-design-review-five-reference-cards/240143.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jacob","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-11",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How should the architectural views be assessed using Card 1?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Card 1 organizes Tier 1 architectural views across components, data flows, physical hosting details, data characteristics, and security as a dedicated view. It also stresses that scenarios should connect behavior to stakeholder needs, and that no single view tells the full story.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What does Card 2 require when evaluating quality attributes?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Card 2 instructs teams to assess each quality attribute across every view, including operational excellence, reliability and resilience, performance efficiency, cost optimisation, and sustainability. It also requires documenting tradeoffs between attributes, with the security view explicitly excluded from this cross-cutting section because it is covered separately.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How is compliance scoring calculated and what thresholds apply?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Overall compliance score equals the lowest individual section score rather than an average. Suggested organisation thresholds include production approval for all sections >= 3, Tier 1/2 critical systems for all sections >= 4, and a remediation plan required for sections scored 0 or 1.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},240143,1791749426,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,97,102,107,112,117,122],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":98,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":103,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":104,"show_sort_weight":105,"slug":106},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":108,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":109,"show_sort_weight":110,"slug":111},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":113,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":114,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":85,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":30},962084931830,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","ADS Cheat Cards All five reference cards  \nCard 1—The Views at a Glance  \nTier 1: Architectural Views (Section 3)  \n\n| \\# | View | What it describes | Primary audience |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 3.1 | Logical View | Components, services, patterns— what the solution is | Architects, Developers |\n| 3.2 | Integration & Data Flow | Data flows, APIs, integrations— how components talk | Integrators, Architects |\n| 3.3 | Physical View | Hosting, compute, networking, environments—where it runs | Infrastructure, DevOps |\n| 3.4 | Data View | Data stores, classification, retention— what data it holds | Data Architects, Compliance |\n| 3.5 | Security View | IAM, encryption, monitoring, threats—how it’s protected | Security, CISO, Compliance |\n| 3.6 | Scenarios | Use cases, ADRs— how it behaves and why | All stakeholders |\n\nRemember: No single view tells the full story. Together, they answer every reasonable question from any reasonable reviewer.  \nCard 2—Quality Attributes at a Glance  \nTier 2: Quality Attributes (Section 4)—cross-cutting  \n\n| \\# | Attribute | Assess across every view | Key questions |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 4.1 | Operational Excellence | Can we operate it in production? | Observability, runbooks, alerts, incident |\n| 4.2 | Reliability & Resilience | What happens when something fails? | response\u003Cbr>RTO, RPO, DR strategy, backup, fault\u003Cbr>tolerance |\n| 4.3 | Performance Efficiency | Does it meet its targets at load? | P95/P99 latency, throughput, concurrency,\u003Cbr>growth |\n| 4.4 | Cost Optimisation | Is it priced to the value delivered? | Capex/opex, unit economics, commitment\u003Cbr>discounts, exit cost |\n| 4.5 | Sustainability | Is it environmentally responsible? | Carbon baseline, efficient resources, SCI\u003Cbr>metric |\n\nDocument tradeoffs explicitly—when one quality attribute constrains another, name the trade-off and the rationale. Security is a View (3.5)—it’s cross-cutting enough to warrant its own structure, so don’t look for it here.  \nCard 3—RAID Template  \nSection 6.1–6.5 Decision Making & Governance Constraints (6.1)—fixed limitations the design must work within  \n\n| ID Constraint Category Impact |  |  | Last Assessed |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| C-001 regulatory / technical /\u003Cbr>commercial / organisational / time |  |  |  |  |\n| Assumptions (6.2)—things treated as true but not verified\u003Cbr>ID Assumption Impact if false Certainty Status\u003Cbr>A-001 high / medium / low open / closed\u003Cbr>Risks (6.3)—potential events with negative impact\u003Cbr>ID Risk Severity Likelihood Owner Mitigation Residual R-001 H/M/L H/M/L H/M/L\u003Cbr>Dependencies (6.4)—external factors this design relies on |  |  | Owner |  |\n| ID Dependency Direction Status |  |  |  | Owner |\n| D-001 | inbound / outbound | committed / not-committed /\u003Cbr>resolved |  |  |\n\nIssues (6.5)—problems that have already materialised  \n\n| ID | Issue | Impact | Owner | Resolution Plan |  | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| I-001 |  | H/M/L |  |  | open / | in-progress / resolved |\n\nGolden rule: Every row needs an owner and a date. Anonymous = unaccountable.  \nCard 4—Compliance Scoring Scale  \n0–5 Compliance Scoring  \n\n| Score | Level | What it means |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 0 | Not Addressed | No evidence for this area |\n| 1 | Acknowledged | Concern recognised, no design or evidence |\n| 2 | Partial | Some requirements met, significant gaps |\n| 3 | Mostly Addressed | Most requirements met, minor gaps (passing grade) |\n| 4 | Fully Addressed | All requirements met with evidence |\n| 5 | Exemplary | Reference-quality—best practice |\n\nOverall score  \nThe overall score is the lowest individual section score, not an average. A solution with 5 in Performance but 1 in Security is a “1”, not a “3” —the Security gap is the concern.  \nWhat to score  \n14 sections: 1, 3.1–3.6, 4.1–4.5, 5, 6 (Executive Summary, the six Views, the five Quality Attributes, Lifecycle, Decision Making) .  \nOrganisation thresholds (suggested defaults)  \n• All sections >= 3-> production ","cbCailnV2FIsBNNW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailnV2FIsBNNW","pdf",191453,7,"English","# Card 1—The Views at a Glance\n## Tier 1: Architectural Views (Section 3)\n# Card 2—Quality Attributes at a Glance\n## Tier 2: Quality Attributes (Section 4)\n# Card 3—RAID Template\n## Decision Making & Governance Constraints (6.1)\n## Assumptions (6.2), Risks (6.3), Dependencies (6.4), Issues (6.5)\n# Card 4—Compliance Scoring Scale\n# Card 5—Documentation Depth Chooser\n# Card 6—Sustainability Quick Hits","[{\"question\":\"How should the architectural views be assessed using Card 1?\",\"answer\":\"Card 1 organizes Tier 1 architectural views across components, data flows, physical hosting details, data characteristics, and security as a dedicated view. It also stresses that scenarios should connect behavior to stakeholder needs, and that no single view tells the full story.\"},{\"question\":\"What does Card 2 require when evaluating quality attributes?\",\"answer\":\"Card 2 instructs teams to assess each quality attribute across every view, including operational excellence, reliability and resilience, performance efficiency, cost optimisation, and sustainability. It also requires documenting tradeoffs between attributes, with the security view explicitly excluded from this cross-cutting section because it is covered separately.\"},{\"question\":\"How is compliance scoring calculated and what thresholds apply?\",\"answer\":\"Overall compliance score equals the lowest individual section score rather than an average. Suggested organisation thresholds include production approval for all sections \\u003e= 3, Tier 1/2 critical systems for all sections \\u003e= 4, and a remediation plan required for sections scored 0 or 1.\"}]","ADS Cheat Cards - Design Review - five reference cards | PDF",1789157879]