Recognises colliding architecture principles with no precedence
Two principles a realistic case puts in opposite directions, with nothing saying which wins.
Can AI do this?
Not settled yet The benchmark tested this, but the models' answers do not settle yet whether they master it. 0 of 4 models in the current benchmark master it.
| Model | Tier | Probability of mastery | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-4-argon | Flagship | 85% | Not shown |
| gemini-3.5-flash-lite | Low cost | 83% | Not shown |
| gpt-6-luna | Low cost | 82% | Not shown |
| claude-haiku-5-5 | Low cost | 83% | Not shown |
Mastered means a probability of at least 90% that the model has this knobit, estimated from its graded answers. “Not shown” means the answers do not settle it either way. How the models are tested.
What it looks like in practice
Expected result: The pair and the case where they collide
How it is assessed: Flags the deficient case and passes the acceptable one. Deficient: AP-002 "Integrate in real time wherever possible" vs AP-003 "Batch is the default integration pattern" Acceptable: One narrowed ("real time for customer-facing data") or a precedence with an implication
Also known as: Contradicting principles, no precedence
Related knobits
Builds on
Usually followed by
All 17 knobits of Frame stakeholder concerns and architecture principles.
Source: Review checklist 01-concerns-principles, row 7 (TOGAF)