Compare synchronous and asynchronous extraction against the same failure cases
Stakeholders disagree about queueing because one alternative is evaluated only on its happy path.
- Focused work estimate
- 4h + prerequisites
- Priority in the scenario
- Medium
- Engineering practice
- Tradeoff analysis · System design
Estimated field mix
- System design70%
- Distributed systems30%
Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence.
Review it, then add it to your workspace.
The board opens an editable draft; nothing is saved until you confirm it. Sign-in and workspace permissions apply, and Demo boards remain ephemeral.
Project context
A fictional procurement portal extracts metadata from uploaded documents. Product wants a responsive upload flow; security wants parser failures isolated from customer-facing processes.
Setup prerequisites
- Create synthetic upload metadata and a fake processing provider.
- Treat diagrams as proposals; implement only local contract probes.
Preceding work
Complete these dependencies, or supply their agreed outputs before taking this ticket.
- ABOUND-101 · Translate document-processing expectations into a bounded workload model
- ABOUND-102 · Draw the document trust boundary with authoritative state owners
- ABOUND-103 · Write the decision record for direct-to-storage document upload
- ABOUND-104 · Specify a document lifecycle that survives parser retries
- ABOUND-105 · Design the transactional dispatch contract for extraction work
- ABOUND-106 · Define extraction-provider deadlines and uncertain completion semantics
- ABOUND-108 · Estimate document backlog growth during a provider outage
Acceptance criteria
- Compare both alternatives under identical workload assumptions.
- Include timeout, duplicate request and parser isolation cases.
- Record accepted tradeoffs and rejected assumptions.
Implementation constraints
- A decision matrix must link to the already-created local probes.
Verification to include
- Score each alternative against documented correctness requirements.
- Demonstrate the case where synchronous processing exceeds the request deadline.
Deliverables
- Alternative comparison and reviewed decision record
Rollout and recovery
Use the comparison for architecture review; revisit when workload or provider guarantees change.
Value of the work
For the engineer: Practice boundary decisions backed by executable consistency and failure checks.
For the team: Review architecture tradeoffs with explicit assumptions before infrastructure commitment.
Evidence boundaries
Outcome Evidence: Tests, patches, and runbooks are requested deliverables. They become Outcome Evidence only through a qualified Mission and immutable Evidence IDs.
Ownership Evidence: Independent adaptation must be observed under a declared verification policy and cite immutable Evidence IDs. Completing a planning ticket establishes no Ownership Evidence.