🎯 Learning objectives

• I can derive C(PF) and C(SL) from their tactics and explain their defining cells (PF's D3, SL's split D10).
• I know the architecture quantum – the joint unit of deployment, scaling and failure – and each pattern's quantum count.
• I can explain the capability table through Maxims 3 and 4: quantum count and partitioning axis.
• I can read the consolidated capability table ordinally – rankings and exclusions, never weighted sums.
• I can explain why agent orchestration is a composition pattern, not an eighth style, and defend “workflows before agents”.
• I can construct the C10 requirements profile: its five High dimensions, three binding scenarios, shape and constraints.
• I can explain why weights, not dimensions, define a class, using the C1/C2 mirror pair.
• I can run the three-stage match for the project platform and record the decision as an ADR draft.

🧑‍🏫 Theory

Lecture 6: Pipelines, Serverless, the View Across – and Your Class (C10) · 2 lessons lecture + 2 lessons exercise
Lecture 6 closes the pattern catalogue with PF and SL, reads all seven columns side by side (Maxims 3 and 4), and opens Part III with C10, your project's class.

• PF: D3 = −− is its definition – makespan and reproducibility, a third consistency semantics (“as of last run”); most deterministically testable pattern, natural home of ingestion, training and evals.
• SL – event-triggered, short-lived, stateless functions; pay per execution, own no capacity. Load shape dominates the profile: D10 = ++/−− inverts (Prime Video) and does not average to ○ (neutral).
• Architecture quantum: independently deployable unit. Maxim 3: one quantum → cheap, simple, consistent, rigid; many → expensive, complex, eventually consistent, elastic. Maxim 4: domain-oriented partitioning, not deployment-unit count, predicts evolvability.
• The consolidated table: no column dominates – a matching problem exists (assumption A2); ordinal reading, never weighted sums; every cell is a default hypothesis, two documented to invert with context.
• Agent orchestration is a composition pattern reusing the catalogue's topologies, not an eighth style; workflows before agents – multi-agent beat single-agent by 90.2 % at 15× the tokens.
• C10 – AI-native advisory platforms, the project's class: Highs D6/D7/D9/D10/D12 (accountability, churn, evals, cost per request, containment); binding scenarios S1–S3; shape hybrid interactive + batch/async; K(a): EU AI Act, GDPR.
• C10 stress-tests the method: inherits C6/C7/C3, adds token budget and eval harness; verdict: hexagonal modular monolith with LLM gateway, PF for ingestion and evals, EDA for job and audit spine.
• C1 and C2 are mirror images across the consistency/availability trade – inverted weights on D1 and D4, verdicts MM+HX core versus EDA+MS hybrid. Weights, not dimensions, define a class.

📎 Materials: Slide set of Lecture 6 (added below by the lecturer) · Script: Part II – Sections 13 (PF – Pipes-and-Filters / Batch Pipeline), 14 (SL – Serverless / FaaS), 15 (Stepping Back: What Seven Patterns Generalise To), 16 (Reading the Catalogue as a Whole) and 17 (Outlook: Agent Orchestration as an Emergent Composition Pattern); Part III – Section 28 (C10 – AI-Native Advisory Platforms). Sections 19–20: preview of the C1/C2 mirror pair only; read in full in week 8.

🧑‍💻 Self-study and assignments

📖 Reading before the lecture: Part II – Sections 13 (PF – Pipes-and-Filters / Batch Pipeline), 14 (SL – Serverless / FaaS), 15 (Stepping Back: What Seven Patterns Generalise To), 16 (Reading the Catalogue as a Whole) and 17 (Outlook: Agent Orchestration as an Emergent Composition Pattern); Part III – Section 28 (C10 – AI-Native Advisory Platforms). Sections 19–20: preview of the C1/C2 mirror pair only; read in full in week 8.

Also before the lecture:

• Bring last week's matrix pre-filter: which candidate patterns survived stage 1 (shape gate) and stage 2 (vetoes) against your A1 requirements profile – the full match builds on it.
• Bring your edge design and service-contract sketch from week 5 (ingestion queue, resilience measures on external calls, events and schemas).

🧩 Exercise session: The match: each team runs the full three-stage procedure against its A1 requirements profile – knock-out with the shape gate, veto with documented mitigations, ordinal reading with sensitivity check – takes the decision and begins the ADR.

🛠️ Project work this week · Milestone M2 – Architecture Decision and Solution Design (weeks 4–7)

• Run the full three-stage match for your platform against your A1 requirements profile R(platform), starting from last week's pre-filter.
• Stage 1, knock-out: apply the hard constraints K(a) and the workload-shape gate (S(a) versus S(p)) – which candidates cannot carry the core?
• Stage 2, veto: hold every High weight against the capability columns – which vetoes fire, and which have documented mitigations?
• Stage 3, ordinal reading: rank the survivors on the High set and run the sensitivity check; then take the decision and begin the ADR (MADR: drivers, options, consequences, confirmation).
• Keep Deliverable A2 in view: architecture dossier + design-review gate at the end of week 7; production code starts only after the gate (exploratory spikes are allowed).

No deliverable is due this week.