EX-00 / Example deliverable · Fictional product · Not client work
Example React Delivery & Ownership Assessment
This is a fictional example for Example SaaS Platform. It was created to show the structure and decision quality of the deliverable. It is not a real client report, and none of the findings, people, systems, or results describe a real company.
EX-01
Executive summary
Example SaaS Platform has a capable product team and a React application that continues to deliver customer value. Delivery risk is increasing because three frontend concerns—remote data, workflow state, and form validation—are owned in different ways across adjacent modules.
The example recommendation is not a rewrite. The first 30 days should prove one shared application boundary in a representative workflow, protect its current behavior, and transfer the decision to the team before wider adoption.
EX-02
Architecture overview
Current shape
Route components fetch data directly, several custom hooks duplicate server-state rules, forms mix validation with network orchestration, and shared components accept product-specific behavior through increasingly broad props.
Ownership observation
Two senior developers are regularly asked to interpret data-flow and component boundary decisions after implementation has started. Review has become the place where architecture is discovered.
Recommended target boundary
Keep route composition thin, place workflow behavior in a typed application module, isolate remote-data operations behind one query boundary, and keep shared UI primitives free of product rules.
EX-03
Example risk register
R-01 · Decision bottleneck · High priority
Important data and workflow decisions depend on two reviewers. Feature work can start without their context, but it cannot finish confidently without late rework.
R-02 · Competing state patterns · High priority
Adjacent workflows use local effects, a global store, and query-cache mutation for similar server-state behavior. Defects are difficult to reproduce and fixes do not transfer cleanly.
R-03 · Shared component coupling · Medium priority
Reusable components receive product-specific flags and callbacks. Change risk is growing, but the current boundary can be improved incrementally.
R-04 · Coverage without responsibility · Medium priority
Tests exist, but several protect implementation details rather than the workflow behavior needed for a safe refactor.
EX-04
Example prioritized finding
Finding 01 · Establish one workflow ownership boundary
Observation: The same workflow is split between route effects, form handlers, query-cache callbacks, and shared components.
Delivery consequence: Developers cannot identify one place to reason about loading, validation, mutation, recovery, and invalidation behavior.
Recommendation: Move one representative workflow into a typed application module with explicit inputs, remote-data operations, validation, and UI states.
Verification: A mid-level developer should be able to implement the second workflow using the documented boundary without a new architecture decision.
EX-05
Priority model
- Critical: A present security, data-integrity, or release risk that blocks safe delivery.
- High: A repeated source of delivery delay, regression risk, or concentrated ownership.
- Medium: A material maintainability cost that should follow the first proven boundary.
- Low: Useful cleanup with limited effect on the next valuable product change.
Priority reflects product and delivery consequence, not how untidy a file looks.
EX-06
Recommended architecture decision
ADR-EX-01 · Own workflow behavior in application modules
Decision: Product workflows own orchestration, validation, remote-data operations, and recovery states inside typed application modules. Routes compose those modules; shared UI components render state without owning product behavior.
Why now: This boundary addresses the highest repeated decision cost and can be proven without changing the whole application.
Trade-off: The team will temporarily maintain one target pattern beside older patterns. Adoption is limited to touched workflows until the example proves its value.
Rejected alternative: A full state-management replacement would increase the change surface before the ownership problem is understood.
EX-07
Suggested 30-day implementation plan
Days 1–5 · Baseline and decision
Map the representative workflow, record current behavior, identify its owners, and agree the ADR and verification evidence.
Days 6–12 · Representative implementation
Implement the application boundary, protect important behavior, and keep the UI states visible for loading, empty, failure, recovery, and success.
Days 13–18 · Team application
Pair with a developer on a second, smaller workflow. Record where the target pattern is clear and where the ADR needs refinement.
Days 19–24 · Review and tooling
Update review guidance, examples, and lightweight architecture checks. Remove only duplication made obsolete by the proven implementation.
Days 25–30 · Handover and next sequence
Review evidence, assign ownership, select the next high-priority workflow, and decide whether external implementation support still creates value.
EX-08
Handover considerations
- Name the internal owner of the decision and the developers who can apply it.
- Keep the ADR close to the representative code and review checklist.
- Record exceptions explicitly instead of hiding them in one-off implementations.
- Reassess the priority sequence when product plans or team responsibilities change.
- End external support when the team can apply and challenge the pattern independently.
EX-09
Request the real assessment
Your assessment would use your product, repository, delivery constraints, and ownership model. It would not reuse these fictional findings as a template verdict.
Request an assessment