Architecture Risks¶

Architectural risk appears when the package boundary becomes hard to explain or hard to test.

This page should keep risk language concrete. The right risks are the ones that would make the package harder to reason about even if the current implementation still appears to work.

Treat the architecture pages for bijux-proteomics-knowledge as a reviewer-facing map of structure and flow. They should shorten code reading, not try to replace it.

Visual Summary¶

flowchart LR
    page["Architecture Risks<br/>clarifies: trace execution | spot dependency pressure | judge structural drift"]
    classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
    classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
    classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
    classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
    classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
    module1["execution engines and lifecycle logic"]
    module1 --> page
    module2["orchestration and replay coordination"]
    module2 --> page
    module3["durable runtime models"]
    module3 --> page
    code1["src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/model"]
    page --> code1
    code2["src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/runtime"]
    page --> code2
    code3["src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/application"]
    page --> code3
    pressure1["tests/e2e for governed flow behavior"]
    pressure1 -.tests whether this structure still holds.-> page
    pressure2["tests/regression and tests/smoke for replay and storage protection"]
    pressure2 -.tests whether this structure still holds.-> page
    pressure3["tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime"]
    pressure3 -.tests whether this structure still holds.-> page
    class page page;
    class module1,module2,module3 positive;
    class code1,code2,code3 anchor;
    class pressure1,pressure2,pressure3 caution;

Risk Signals¶

behavior moves into the wrong package because it seems convenient
interfaces start depending on lower-level implementation details directly
produced artifacts stop matching their documented contract

Review Areas¶

src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/model for durable runtime models
src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/runtime for execution engines and lifecycle logic
src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/application for orchestration and replay coordination
src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/verification for runtime-level validation support
src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/interfaces for CLI surfaces and manifest loading
src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/api for HTTP application surfaces

Concrete Anchors¶

src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/model for durable runtime models
src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/runtime for execution engines and lifecycle logic
src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/application for orchestration and replay coordination

Use This Page When¶

you are tracing structure, execution flow, or dependency pressure
you need to understand how modules fit before refactoring
you are reviewing design drift rather than one isolated bug

Decision Rule¶

Use Architecture Risks to decide whether a structural change makes bijux-proteomics-knowledge easier or harder to explain in terms of modules, dependency direction, and execution flow. If the change works only because the design becomes harder to read, the safer answer is redesign rather than acceptance.

What This Page Answers¶

how bijux-proteomics-knowledge is organized internally in terms a reviewer can follow
which modules carry the main execution and dependency story
where structural drift would show up before it becomes expensive

Reviewer Lens¶

trace the described execution path through the named modules instead of trusting the diagram alone
look for dependency direction or layering that now contradicts the documented seam
verify that the structural risks named here still match the current code shape

Honesty Boundary¶

This page describes the current structural model of bijux-proteomics-knowledge, but it does not guarantee that every import path or runtime path still obeys that model. Readers should treat it as a map that must stay aligned with code and tests, not as an authority above them.

Next Checks¶

move to interfaces when the review reaches a public or operator-facing seam
move to operations when the concern becomes repeatable runtime behavior
move to quality when you need proof that the documented structure is still protected

Purpose¶

This page keeps architectural review focused on durable package risks instead of transient churn.

Stability¶

Keep it aligned with the package structure and known review concerns.