# Fictional architecture review deliverable example

This is a teaching example, not a client engagement, reference or approved design.

## Decision
How should a fictional order service handle a missing response after payment may have succeeded?

## Boundaries
One order journey: request, payment authorisation, stock reservation and customer confirmation. Production integration and legal/compliance advice are outside this example.

## Options to investigate
1. Blindly retry the payment request: investigate duplicate effects; do not assume retries are safe.
2. Query provider state with the original transaction key: confirm supported semantics, retention and outage behaviour.
3. Escalate to manual reconciliation: define the owner, evidence, deadline and customer treatment.

## Evidence questions
- Can the provider distinguish a repeated request from a new business operation?
- What state remains visible after a timeout or partial outage?
- What does the customer see while the outcome is unknown?
- Which actor may reconcile or authorise a retry?

## Example action list
| Action | Owner | Evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confirm duplicate-request semantics | Name the payment integration owner | Vendor contract and bounded integration test | Open |
| Rehearse a lost-response case | Name the test owner | Correlated request/provider/order timeline | Open |
| Agree manual reconciliation | Name the service owner | Runbook and escalation boundary | Open |

## Review trigger
Revisit when provider semantics, transaction-key retention, operating ownership or the reconciliation window changes.

A sample action list does not establish delivery readiness. Replace assumptions with evidence from the actual system.