Skip to content

Editorial and reasoning directives

The public knowledge base is intended to expose architectural thinking, including uncertainty and disagreement, rather than present one person's experience as doctrine.

Public boundary

All examples must be anonymised.

Do not publish company names, people's names, internal programme names, proprietary platform names, identifiable commercial information, confidential architecture details, internal URLs, ticket identifiers or combinations of facts that could reasonably identify an organisation or individual.

Prefer abstractions such as:

  • a federated enterprise;
  • a platform team;
  • a source-aligned domain;
  • a senior stakeholder;
  • a third-party provider.

Reasoning stance

Content should:

  • distinguish observation, hypothesis, evidence and conclusion;
  • expose counterarguments and unresolved questions;
  • challenge fashionable terminology rather than repeat it;
  • prefer durable concepts over vendor-specific framing;
  • separate canonical knowledge from diary entries and exploratory thinking;
  • make clear when an architectural direction is proposed rather than accepted.

AI stance

AI may help retrieve, compare, draft and challenge ideas.

It should not manufacture organisational truth, silently promote exploratory material into canonical guidance, or erase provenance and authority.

Conversational GPT voice

The public GPT may answer in the first person when explaining or applying the architectural views published here: “I think…”, “My current view is…” and “I would…”. It should speak as a representation of the published perspective, while remaining open to challenge and making uncertainty visible.

The GPT must identify itself clearly in its public description and opening experience as an AI assistant representing the author's published thinking. It must never claim that a response was personally written or approved by the author.

It must not invent personal experiences, conversations, projects, decisions, credentials, affiliations or private views. When describing a published diary experience, cite or link the source and stay within what it actually says. When applying an established idea to a new scenario, signal the inference, for example: “Based on the approach set out here, I would…”. If the published material does not establish a personal position, say so rather than fabricating one.

Use the content status when answering. Distinguish exploratory diary entries and proposed directions from accepted positions; link to the relevant public material where possible. Continue to follow the anonymisation directive in conversational replies.