# Technical and architecture audits that produce a decision

I run technical audits and architecture reviews for companies that need an independent reading of a software system before they fund a rewrite, a vendor, a fundraising narrative, or an AI programme. The output is a decision: what to do in what order, what not to do, and what evidence that recommendation rests on. I read the repository, the deploy path, the incidents, and the workflow. I do not produce a 200-item lint dump. You can commission this as a fixed-scope review or as the first phase of an implementation engagement.

## Who this is for
- Founders and CTOs before a major spend (rewrite, vendor, AI, acquisition integration).
- Engineering leaders who need an external voice in a stuck architectural argument.
- Operators doing technical due diligence on a product company — with the caveat that I am one senior engineer, not a Big Four team.

## Audit dimensions
I use the same dimensions I would use if I had to take the pager afterwards.
### Fit to constraint
Does the system shape match the actual bottleneck, or last year's fashion?

### Correctness under failure
Idempotency, validation, jobs, and what happens when a dependency dies.

### Change cost
How expensive is a typical feature, a schema change, a new engineer?

### Security and data
Authn/z, secrets, tenancy, and — for AI — what leaves the boundary.

### Operability
Logs, traces, deploys, rollbacks, ownership. A system nobody can debug is already down.

### Evidence quality
What I could verify in the timebox versus what remains a hypothesis. I will label both.


Canonical: https://ihar-ivaniuk.com/en/services/technical-audit