Architecture governance.
Without the disconnect.
Publish architectural direction. Prepare better designs.
Make informed Board decisions, with one traceable request.
Sign in with Microsoft, Google or email.
Define what good looks like.
Maintain guidance independently of project requests. Publish rich pages, Word content and diagrams with a retained owner and version.
Projects see published guidance, not working drafts.
Architecture Library
Published guidanceIndependent reference knowledge for your design.
- API design standardsIntegration architecturev3
- Responsible AI guidelinesData & AI architecturev2
- Security design principlesSecurity architecturev4
Give every initiative a front door.
Start with a request. Complete your organisation's checklist and standard design document, then submit an exact version to EA Governance.
Project drafts stay with the assigned project team.
Customer portal integration
Frozen packA specific design, ready for architecture review.
- Business context
- Connect the customer portal to existing account services.
- Referenced guidance
- API design standards v3
- Submitted architecture document
- Integration design, options and security rationale
Review the design. Keep the context.
Review your assistant's cited questions, discuss the design at the Board and record a human decision. Release only the message intended for the project.
Internal discussions and AI findings stay in the board area.
Customer portal integration
Architecture reviewEvidence in context. Questions with a clear owner.
The recovery approach needs more detail against the referenced API standard.
How will the integration recover when the account service is unavailable?
Shared direction. Separate responsibilities. Explicit access to each area.
More perspectives.
Human judgement.
Ask AI specialists to examine the submitted design, from security and data to operations and risk. Get findings linked to the evidence, not another disconnected conversation.
Each stakeholder defines their review perspective. Where authorised, submission starts their assistant's preparation. Humans assess the findings and make the Board decision. AI cannot approve designs, accept risks or contact project teams.
How access and data are handledSix lenses on the same design.
- Solution
Design choices and alignment
- Security
Trust boundaries and protections
- Data & AI
Data use and model oversight
- Operations
Recovery and supportability
- Risk
Exposure and open questions
- Evidence
Gaps in the submitted rationale
Internal advice for the board. Never an automatic decision.
Don't start every
conversation from zero.
Search earlier decisions your organisation has explicitly published. Find the rationale, context and conditions behind a previous approach before starting the next discussion.
Historical records inform a review. They don't approve a new project or replace required guidance.
Start with one team.
Build a shared direction.
Explore access and setup A focused pilot, with clear limits.
Publish architecture pages independently. Prepare a project checklist and design, then submit an exact version for stakeholder preparation and human Board review.
Document uploads require private storage and malware scanning. AI preparation requires your organisation's processing authorisation. Organisation SSO is not yet available. Do not use the pilot as your authoritative approval system before supervised acceptance.
Security and compliance boundaries
Access is scoped in the application, not isolated into separate services and databases. Submission is not approval, and Xyreka does not guarantee compliance.