--- engine_id: architecture_review template_id: base-review-report tier: deep coverage_mode: comprehensive focus_profiles: - architecture_quality - tech_debt - security - reliability - scalability - operations - cost - proof_strength status: final risk_lane: product-critical AI workflow review_trigger: Fresh Deep Tier comprehensive workspace review (session-first; prior artifacts ignored) staleness_condition: Material when LangGraph flags, Docker Compose services, CI gates, or design-spec runtime flags change --- # Architecture Review — Scopelytics AI Workspace (Deep) ## TL;DR - The product has a coherent **FastAPI + ARQ + PostgreSQL + Redis + Next.js proxy** shape with strong contract discipline (PS-001) and extensive local test coverage, but **production proof is thinner than local quality** because PR CI does not run backend pytest or `check:api-contract`. - The highest structural risk is **dual orchestration for design-spec** (9k+ line `DesignAutomationService` vs LangGraph under `backend/src/app/graphs/design_spec/`) with **shadow mode disabled**, so cutover decisions lack safe parity evidence. - **P1 default wave:** tighten production observability auth (metrics), align design-spec runtime flags across environments, add CI proof gates, and decide LangGraph cutover via ADR/tradeoff before large refactors of the monolith. ## Project Context Summary - **Knowledge base / standards / profile:** `_context/design/architecture/project-knowledge-base.md`, `project-standards/ps-001` through `ps-004`, `architect-project.profile.json` — all present and active. - **Conflicts / gaps:** `_context/decisions/` has **no durable ADRs** (profile `known_review_risks` confirms). Prior review/action-summary artifacts in `_context/design/architecture/` were **excluded** per session instruction. ## Architecture Context - **Stakeholders:** Product/engineering (design-spec pipeline), platform/ops (Docker Compose, metrics, workers), security (auth/admin, provider keys), finance (AI cost attribution). - **Concerns:** Contract truth (PS-001), AI provider governance (PS-002), async artifact ops (PS-003), session/proxy boundaries (PS-004), LangGraph migration safety, CI proof strength. - **Viewpoints / views used:** Container (Compose services), runtime (API/worker/frontend proxy), deployment (local Compose baseline), decision (missing ADRs), threat (proxy + admin + metrics), capacity (ARQ concurrency, rate limits). - **Evidence strength:** **direct** for code paths cited; **inferred** for production deployment posture where only Compose defaults were checked; **missing** for live SLOs, penetration tests, and production incident history. - **Confidence:** **Medium** — codebase and standards are well documented; production runtime configuration and operator runbooks were not executed in this review. ## Scope And Lifecycle - **Status:** final (advisory) - **Owning workflow:** `architecture-review.md` via `th-architect` - **Owner or responsible group:** Principal architecture advisory (session) - **In scope:** Entire workspace runtime architecture — backend API/workers, design-spec and analysis pipelines, frontend proxy/auth, persistence, observability hooks, CI proof surface, project standards alignment. - **Out of scope:** Implementing fixes, writing implementation plans, product UX brainstorm, QA execution, penetration testing, live production metrics/incidents, prior ADRs/specs/plans from earlier sessions. - **Risk lane:** product-critical AI workflow - **Review trigger:** User-requested Deep Tier comprehensive `architecture_review` (fresh session) - **Staleness condition:** Re-run when `LANGGRAPH_`* flags, `WIREFRAME_PREGENERATION_*` / Stitch flags, `.github/workflows/check-pr.yml`, or admin/auth middleware defaults change materially ## Review Coverage Matrix | Profile | Status | Evidence | Why checked / skipped | Proof needed | | -------------------- | ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | architecture_quality | checked | `backend/src/app/api/v1/__init__.py`, `backend/src/app/graphs/README.md`, `project-knowledge-base.md` | Comprehensive default | LangGraph cutover ADR + module boundary plan | | tech_debt | checked | `backend/src/app/services/design_automation_service.py` (~9265 LOC), `graphs/design_spec/adapters.py` | Comprehensive default | Refactor phased with graph-primary proof | | security | checked | `frontend/app/api/proxy/[...path]/route.ts`, `frontend/lib/server/csrf.ts`, `backend/src/app/core/config.py`, `backend/src/app/api/v1/dependencies.py` | Comprehensive default | Prod metrics token + docs hardening validation | | reliability | checked | `backend/src/app/main.py` (`/health`, `/ready`), `backend/src/app/workers/tasks.py`, `design_spec_auto_trigger.py` | Comprehensive default | Runtime flag parity checklist in deploy | | scalability | checked | `backend/src/app/workers/settings.py`, `RATE_LIMIT_EXCLUDE_PATHS`, DB pool in `config.py` | Comprehensive default | Load test on analysis + design-spec queue | | operations | checked | `backend/docker-compose.yml`, `backend/ops/grafana/`, worker metrics | Comprehensive default | Runbook for flag drift + queue backlog | | cost | checked | `backend/src/app/models/analysis.py`, `design_spec.py` (`total_cost_usd`, `token_usage`) | Comprehensive default | Cost dashboard tied to allowlist + quotas | | proof_strength | checked | `.github/workflows/check-pr.yml`, `backend/tests/` (100+ modules), empty `_context/decisions/` | Comprehensive default | CI pytest + `npm run check:api-contract` | ## Strengths - **Clear runtime boundaries:** FastAPI `/api/v1` composition (`backend/src/app/api/v1/__init__.py`), ARQ workers (`backend/src/app/workers/tasks.py`), Next.js same-origin proxy with prefix allowlist and CSRF (`frontend/app/api/proxy/[...path]/route.ts`, `frontend/lib/server/csrf.ts`). - **Backend-owned lifecycle truth** for design-spec aligned with PS-001 (`backend/src/app/models/design_spec.py`, `frontend/lib/api/design-spec.ts`, `frontend/PRD.md`). - **AuthZ layering:** JWT access/refresh with token version checks and explicit admin gate (`backend/src/app/api/v1/dependencies.py:123-133`). - **Health model:** Liveness vs readiness separation with cached dependency probes (`backend/src/app/main.py:200-228`). - **Idempotency and queue dedup** for uploads and design-spec auto-trigger (`backend/src/app/api/v1/endpoints/analysis.py`, `backend/src/app/services/design_spec_auto_trigger.py`). - **Rich automated tests locally** (e.g. `backend/tests/test_design_spec_wireframe_generator.py`, `test_design_automation_service_repairs.py`, `test_auth.py`) and AI runtime guardrails (`backend/src/app/core/guardrails/`). - **LangGraph rollout discipline documented** — never cut analysis and design-spec to graph-primary in one deploy (`backend/src/app/graphs/README.md:67-72`). ## Findings | ID | Priority | Title | Evidence | Proof | Owner | | --- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------- | | F1 | P1 (high) | Design-spec logic concentrated in one service | `backend/src/app/services/design_automation_service.py` (~9265 lines) | Phased extraction + regression suite green | Backend tech lead | | F2 | P1 (high) | LangGraph cutover lacks safe shadow evidence | `graphs/README.md`, `workers/tasks.py:61-75`, `design_spec_auto_trigger.py:37-50` | Shadow/dry-run adapter + diff logs before primary | Principal architect | | F3 | P1 (high) | PR CI omits backend tests and API contract check | `.github/workflows/check-pr.yml`, `frontend/package.json` (`check:api-contract`) | CI jobs added; required checks on main | Platform / QA | | F4 | P2 (medium) | No durable architecture decisions on disk | `_context/decisions/` empty; `architect-project.profile.json:147` | ADR/Y-statement for graph cutover + SAP-style boundaries N/A | Principal architect | | F5 | P2 (medium) | Global rate limit excludes heavy job paths | `backend/src/app/core/config.py:111-120` | Abuse test / WAF rule at edge | Security + platform | | F6 | P1 (high) | Metrics scrape may be unauthenticated in prod | `backend/src/app/main.py:241-264`, `config.py:135-137`, `docker-compose.yml` (`METRICS_TOKEN` default empty) | Compose/prod requires token or network policy | Platform | | F7 | P1 (high) | Design-spec runtime flags can diverge by environment | `main.py:58-73`, `workers/settings.py:40-58`, KB + lessons on Docker drift | Deploy checklist + integration test per flag | Ops + backend | | F8 | P2 (medium) | No documented SLOs or error budgets | Repo search; metrics without SLO defs | SLO doc + alert thresholds on `/ready` + queue lag | SRE / product | | F9 | P2 (medium) | Worker throughput capped at six concurrent jobs | `backend/src/app/workers/settings.py:33` | Load test + queue depth metrics under peak | Platform | | F10 | P2 (medium) | OpenAPI/docs exposed by default | `backend/src/app/main.py:146-153`, root advertises `/docs` | Production disables docs or restricts by network | Security | ### F1 — Design-spec logic concentrated in one service Evidence: `backend/src/app/services/design_automation_service.py` · Proof: module split + adjacent test files green · Owner: Backend tech lead - **Problem:** Design-spec generation, validation, prompts, and repair logic live in a single ~9k-line module while LangGraph adapters still delegate into it (`backend/src/app/graphs/design_spec/adapters.py`), creating a change blast radius on the product's most complex subsystem. - **Why:** Reviews, onboarding, and safe refactors slow down; graph migration cannot shrink complexity until the service boundary is decomposed. - **Assumptions:** No equivalent logic is hidden only in notebooks or scripts outside `backend/src/app/services/`. - **Severity / Lenses:** P1 (high) · ISO/IEC 25010 (quality model) · maintainability · tech debt - **criterion_id:** MAINT-001 (architecture quality / tech debt) - **Recommendation:** Define capability-based modules (inventory, definitions, wireframe/export, validation) behind stable ports; keep LangGraph nodes as thin orchestration only. ### F2 — LangGraph cutover lacks safe shadow evidence Evidence: `backend/src/app/graphs/README.md:67-72` · `workers/tasks.py:61-75` · `design_spec_auto_trigger.py:37-50` · Proof: dry-run shadow with diff metrics · Owner: Principal architect - **Problem:** Design-spec LangGraph shadow hooks explicitly skip execution because graph persistence shares live CRUD, so operators cannot compare graph vs legacy outputs before flipping `LANGGRAPH_DESIGN_SPEC_ENABLED`. - **Why:** Enabling graph-primary without parity evidence risks silent contract or readiness regressions on `DesignSpecRun` states (PS-001). - **Assumptions:** Production still runs legacy-primary today (flags default false in config fields reviewed). - **Severity / Lenses:** P1 (high) · architecture quality · reliability · proof strength - **criterion_id:** reliability - **Recommendation:** Prioritize a dry-run persistence adapter, then run documented rollout order (analysis shadow → analysis primary → design-spec shadow → design-spec primary) never combined in one deploy. ### F3 — PR CI omits backend tests and API contract check Evidence: `.github/workflows/check-pr.yml` (lint, mypy, frontend lint/typecheck/build only) · `frontend/package.json` scripts · Proof: new CI jobs + branch protection · Owner: Platform / QA - **Problem:** Merge gates do not execute `pytest` or `npm run check:api-contract`, so PS-001 contract drift and backend regressions can reach main despite extensive local tests under `backend/tests/`. - **Why:** Proof strength for architecture claims rests on developer discipline, not enforced pipeline evidence. - **Assumptions:** No alternate CI workflow outside `.github/workflows/` was found. - **Severity / Lenses:** P1 (high) · proof strength · ISO/IEC 25010 (quality model) · portability (CI) - **criterion_id:** proof_strength - **Recommendation:** Add path-filtered `pytest` (smoke + design-spec contract subset minimum) and frontend `check:api-contract` to PR checks; expand to fuller suites on nightly if runtime is prohibitive. ### F4 — No durable architecture decisions on disk Evidence: `_context/decisions/` empty · `architect-project.profile.json:147` · Proof: merged ADR for graph cutover · Owner: Principal architect - **Problem:** Material forks (LangGraph vs legacy, provider fallback policy, export identity) are encoded in code and KB but not as durable decision records, increasing governance drift risk. - **Why:** Future agents and teams cannot see rejected options or approval boundaries without re-reading large services. - **Assumptions:** No ADRs live outside `_context/decisions/` under another naming scheme. - **Severity / Lenses:** P2 (medium) · proof strength · governance - **criterion_id:** governance drift (proof) - **Recommendation:** Record XS/S decisions as Y-statements and M/L graph cutover as ADR/tradeoff matrix under `_context/decisions/` or `_context/design/architecture/`. ### F5 — Global rate limit excludes heavy job paths Evidence: `backend/src/app/core/config.py:111-120` · Proof: authenticated abuse simulation · Owner: Security + platform - **Problem:** `/api/v1/analyses`, `/api/v1/analysis-results`, and `/api/v1/design-spec-runs` bypass the global rate limiter while still being expensive AI-backed surfaces. - **Why:** Compromised or buggy clients can enqueue unbounded work unless other limits (`DAILY_ANALYSIS_LIMIT`, auth) bind them. - **Assumptions:** Per-user analysis limits are enforced on all entry paths (spot-checked in config, not every endpoint). - **Severity / Lenses:** P2 (medium) · security · scalability - **criterion_id:** SEC-002 (rate limiting / abuse) - **Recommendation:** Add per-user/per-route limits on enqueue endpoints or enforce at API gateway; keep health exclusions only. ### F6 — Metrics scrape may be unauthenticated in prod Evidence: `backend/src/app/main.py:248-250` · `METRICS_TOKEN` default empty in `config.py:135-137` · `docker-compose.yml` passes `${METRICS_TOKEN:-}` · Proof: prod Compose requires token · Owner: Platform - **Problem:** When `METRICS_TOKEN` is unset, `/metrics` is intentionally open; Compose defaults leave it empty, exposing Prometheus text format on the API port unless network-restricted. - **Why:** Metrics can leak route labels, job IDs, and dependency health signals useful for targeted attacks. - **Assumptions:** Production does not always front metrics with an allowlisted reverse proxy (not verified live). - **Severity / Lenses:** P1 (high) · security · operations - **criterion_id:** SEC-001 (secrets / exposure) - **Recommendation:** Require non-empty `METRICS_TOKEN` in non-dev environments or bind metrics to internal-only listener; mirror worker metrics (`0.0.0.0:9101`) behind same policy. ### F7 — Design-spec runtime flags can diverge by environment Evidence: `main.py:58-73` · `workers/settings.py:40-58` · `_context/lessons.md` (Docker preview cache keys) · Proof: deploy manifest pins flags · Owner: Ops + backend - **Problem:** `WIREFRAME_PREGENERATION_ENABLED`, Stitch preference, and degraded-verification flags are logged at startup but easy to mismatch between local API, worker container, and developer `.env` vs Compose — changing preview/workbook readiness semantics (PS-001, PS-003). - **Why:** Operators interpret "ready" differently per environment; incidents resemble frontend bugs but are configuration drift. - **Assumptions:** No centralized feature-flag service exists yet. - **Severity / Lenses:** P1 (high) · reliability · operations · PS-003 Async Artifact And Operations - **criterion_id:** reliability - **Recommendation:** Treat the three flags as a versioned **runtime profile** document checked into ops config; add a single `/api/v1/config` or admin diagnostic surfacing effective worker+API values. ### F8 — No documented SLOs or error budgets Evidence: Metrics and health endpoints exist; no SLO definitions in repo docs · Proof: SLO doc + alert rules · Owner: SRE / product - **Problem:** Reliability claims (queue backlog, design-spec latency, export success) lack user-facing SLOs, error budgets, or alert thresholds despite Google SRE-style instrumentation hooks. - **Why:** Prioritization between P1 fixes and feature work lacks measurable failure budgets. - **Assumptions:** External monitoring (Grafana folder under `backend/ops/grafana/`) is not wired to on-call in this repo snapshot. - **Severity / Lenses:** P2 (medium) · Google SRE principles · reliability - **criterion_id:** reliability - **Recommendation:** Define SLIs for analysis completion time, design-spec run success rate, and export latency; tie `/ready` degradation and queue depth to paging policies. ### F9 — Worker throughput capped at six concurrent jobs Evidence: `backend/src/app/workers/settings.py:33` (`WORKER_MAX_CONCURRENT_JOBS = 6`) · Proof: load test at target concurrency · Owner: Platform - **Problem:** ARQ worker concurrency is hard-coded, not env-tunable, while analysis and design-spec jobs are long-running LLM workloads — a single worker fleet can become the system bottleneck under concurrent users. - **Why:** Horizontal scale requires more worker containers, but each still caps parallel jobs at six regardless of CPU/memory. - **Assumptions:** No second queue consumer pattern is configured in Compose by default. - **Severity / Lenses:** P2 (medium) · scalability · cost (idle capacity) - **criterion_id:** scalability - **Recommendation:** Expose concurrency via settings with safe defaults; scale workers horizontally and monitor Redis queue depth + job age percentiles. ### F10 — OpenAPI/docs exposed by default Evidence: `create_application()` uses FastAPI defaults (`main.py:146-153`); root JSON lists `/docs` · Proof: production build disables docs · Owner: Security - **Problem:** Interactive OpenAPI and ReDoc remain available unless deployment middleware blocks them; rate limit excludes `/docs` paths. - **Why:** Attack surface expansion and schema leakage in production environments. - **Assumptions:** `ENVIRONMENT=production` does not automatically disable docs (no `docs_url=None` found). - **Severity / Lenses:** P2 (medium) · OWASP ASVS · security - **criterion_id:** SEC-003 (exposure) - **Recommendation:** Set `docs_url=None`, `redoc_url=None`, `openapi_url=None` when `ENVIRONMENT=production` (or behind admin auth). ## Recommended Next Artifact - **Next:** `action-summary` companion artifact - **Why:** Multiple P1 themes (monolith, LangGraph proof, CI gates, metrics auth, runtime flags) overlap on remediation sequencing and need deduplicated master issues before roadmap or implementation handoff. - **Default scope:** F2, F3, F6, F7 (decision + proof + ops hardening wave) - **Not next:** `roadmap_shaping` — remediation direction for graph cutover and monolith decomposition is not pre-authorized; `kd-handoff-spec` — no approved spec scope yet. - **Requires approval:** yes — user must confirm default scope and whether LangGraph primary cutover is in or out of the next wave. - **Proof gate:** CI runs pytest smoke + `check:api-contract` on PR; production metrics require `METRICS_TOKEN` or documented network deny. - **Related findings:** F1–F10; blocked auto companion `tradeoff_decision_support` until F2 scope is approved. - **Backlog vs default scope:** Full table in `## Remediation Backlog And Handoff`; only Default scope IDs are committed for the current wave. - **Plan path note:** n/a until `kd-handoff-spec` after scope approval. ## Remediation Backlog And Handoff | Finding ID | Priority | One-line issue | Suggested next artifact | Auto-eligible? | Blocked by | In default scope? | | ---------- | -------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------- | ----------------- | | F1 | P1 | 9k-line design automation monolith | defer (post-ADR) | no | F2 decision | no | | F2 | P1 | LangGraph shadow disabled | tradeoff_decision_support / adr-generation | conditional | user scope approval | yes | | F3 | P1 | CI missing pytest + api-contract | kd-handoff-spec (CI spec) | conditional | user scope approval | yes | | F4 | P2 | No ADRs on disk | adr-generation | conditional | F2/F4 bundling | no | | F5 | P2 | Rate limit holes on AI paths | kd-handoff-spec | no | security prioritization | no | | F6 | P1 | Open metrics endpoint risk | ops-ticket / kd-handoff-spec | conditional | prod access proof | yes | | F7 | P1 | Runtime flag drift | ops-ticket | conditional | deploy checklist approval | yes | | F8 | P2 | Missing SLOs | defer | no | product prioritization | no | | F9 | P2 | Worker concurrency cap | defer | no | load test budget | no | | F10 | P2 | OpenAPI docs in prod | kd-handoff-spec | no | security wave | no | ## Engine-Specific Sections ### Tech debt (profile) - Concentration in `design_automation_service.py` (F1) dominates maintainability risk; LangGraph adapters currently **wrap** rather than **replace** that debt. - Positive: extensive targeted tests under `backend/tests/test_design_automation_service_repairs.py` and wireframe/export suites reduce regression risk during decomposition. ### Security (profile) - **Trust boundaries:** Browser → Next.js proxy (CSRF + cookie auth) → FastAPI → PostgreSQL/Redis → OpenAI/Stitch providers. - Admin routes consistently use `get_current_admin_user` (sample: `backend/src/app/api/v1/endpoints/admin.py`). - Gaps: metrics exposure (F6), docs surface (F10), rate-limit exclusions (F5). `LOGIN_ACCOUNT_REQUESTS_PER_15_MINUTES: 100000` in `config.py:129` reads as non-production-hardened — verify before prod. ### Reliability (profile) - Worker gating for wireframe pre-generation on `READY_FOR_REVIEW` only (`workers/tasks.py:41-58`) prevents misleading progress — good reliability pattern. - Weakness: environment flag drift (F7) and absent SLOs (F8). ### Scalability (profile) - Separate Redis URLs for cache vs queue (`config.py:88-90`) supports scaling patterns. - Bottleneck: fixed `WORKER_MAX_CONCURRENT_JOBS = 6` (F9) and long Next.js proxy timeouts up to 900s for design-spec export (`frontend/app/api/proxy/[...path]/route.ts:47-48`) — validate hosting model (Node server vs serverless) before scale-out. ### Cost / value signal - Per-job cost attribution exists on `Analysis` and `DesignSpecRun` (`total_cost_usd`, `token_usage` fields) — good cost observability foundation. - **Cost Estimate Section Gate:** not passed (no material infra pricing change proposed); environment-specific cost tables omitted. - Risk: unconstrained parallel LLM work under excluded rate limits (F5) can raise spend without user-visible throttling. ## Risks And Follow-Up - **Risks:** Enabling LangGraph-primary without shadow proof (F2); merging PRs without automated pytest (F3); operators misreading readiness due to flag drift (F7). - **Required decisions:** Approve default remediation wave (F2, F3, F6, F7); decide whether F1 monolith split waits for graph cutover ADR. - **Recommended Harness handoff:** After action-summary + scope approval → `tradeoff_decision_support` for LangGraph cutover; then `kd-handoff-spec` for CI and metrics hardening — never `kd-dev` directly from this review (PRC-1). - **Deep tier auxiliary:** Consider `templates/risk-matrix.md` companion if leadership needs ranked cross-profile risk scoring beyond this report. ## Decisions, Questions, And Assumptions ### Blocking Decisions | ID | Decision | Blocks | | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | | DEC-1 | Include LangGraph design-spec primary cutover in the next remediation wave? | F2, F1 sequencing | | DEC-2 | Treat open `/metrics` as acceptable behind network policy, or require token everywhere non-dev? | F6 | ### Blocking Open Questions | ID | Question | Blocks | | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | | OQ-1 | Is production deployed only via `backend/docker-compose.yml`, or another topology (K8s/serverless)? | F6, F9, F10 proof choices | ### Working Assumptions - Workspace under review is **Scopelytics AI** (`architect-project.profile.json`), not a separate transport/logistics product; filename slug `transport-system` is session artifact naming only. - Legacy design-spec path remains primary in typical deployments until `LANGGRAPH_DESIGN_SPEC_ENABLED` is explicitly enabled. - User excluded prior review/ADR/spec/plan artifacts from evidence for this session. ### Non-Blocking Questions - Should nightly CI run full `backend/tests` suite vs PR smoke subset? ## Evidence Ledger Evidence ledger (scope, method, commands) ### Scope - Repository root `D:/tryhand-project/scopelytics-ai-powered` - Focus: runtime architecture, CI, design-spec/analysis pipelines, security middleware, project standards ### Method - Read project KB, standards PS-001–004, architect profile - Inspected entrypoints: `main.py`, `api/v1/__init__.py`, proxy route, worker settings/tasks - Grepped config/security patterns; counted `design_automation_service.py` lines (~9265) - Reviewed `.github/workflows/check-pr.yml`; confirmed `_context/decisions/` empty - Did **not** run pytest, docker compose, or live API calls in this session ### Commands (advisory — not executed as proof) - Backend quality: `ruff check`, `mypy`, `pytest` (per `architect-project.profile.json`) - Frontend: `npm run lint`, `npm run build`, `npm run check:api-contract` ### Skipped checks - Live penetration test, production metrics scrape, load test, full pytest run ## Self-Check - Evidence Packet and Normalize Pass applied; material claims cite paths or are labeled assumption/inference. - Eight focus profiles recorded in coverage matrix. - Findings use table mode (10 findings) with detail blocks per schema. - No implementation or plan authored from this review. ## Artifact Self-Check - Declared engine/template used: `architecture_review` / `base-review-report.md` / Deep comprehensive variant. - Required H2 sections present per `templates/base-review-report.md`. - Findings include `criterion_id` where checklist applied. - `## Recommended Next Artifact` and `## Remediation Backlog And Handoff` included (material findings). - Durable path: `_context/design/architecture/2026-06-04-000005-transport-system-deep-review.md` - Post-report chat brief emitted separately in session close.