Right on, Simon! I use the C4 Model quite a bit. I look forward to reading your book after it is published.

Yes, mindless following is an issue.

Decades of skills and experience is valuable and shouldn't be ignored.

Personally, I find learning recipes and having them at my disposal to be quite valuable. Apllying them based on when, where, how they best fit scenarios helps me achieve better outcomes.

Some do, yes I like guides more as here are those outcomes we need to achieve and this “tool” can help us get there. I have found guides to help teams get to reach those outcomes along with identifying and applying patterns. I like your note on mindset and assessing effectiveness.

I was speaking to the exceptions as they have been some of my experiences. I agree that at other companies, change stagnant and “tailored” can mean something else.

I think of processes and frameworks (architecture design processes , TOGAF, etc) as guides. They can be helpful and tailored to be more helpful in guiding teams goals.

As a result, some team members leave less comments, leading to increased gaps in meeting functional requirements and increased risk. Approaches have to be updated to include intent, data from additional sources, and different analysis of the data to paint a more accurate picture.

1. Authors adding comments to clearly communicate changes beyond code comments and self-describing code.
2. Adding comments for questions to listen and learn
3. Adding comments for recommendations, when they are distinct from requests for changes.

One common assumption I’ve observed is management thinking fewer comments on PRs means the set of changes are at a higher level of quality than PRs with more comments. This misguided assumption doesn’t taken into account:

I agree that some metrics are helpful. On the other hand, approaches to measuring productivity can have innacuracies based on assumptions.

Nice visualization!