Expert Advisory

Expensive architecture decisions need a written answer.

Bring one payment, AI, or integration decision. Leave with a decision brief, risk register, vendor scorecard, or implementation review your team can act on without another explanation call.

Open advisory intake

Sample deliverables

See the decision artifact before you book.

Each review ends in a decision artifact your team can inspect, debate, and act on. These are representative surfaces, not client work.

Decision memo

A defensible recommendation

One page of answer-first guidance for the decision owner.

RecommendationRejected pathsEvidenceNext move

Recommend merchant-of-record for launch, with direct processing deferred until reconciliation volume justifies it.

Architecture review

System shape and failure paths

A practical read on boundaries, ownership, data contracts, and operational risk.

Current shapeTarget boundaryFailure modeControl point

Move entitlement state behind the checkout callback boundary and make webhook replay idempotent before beta.

Risk register

Risks tied to owners

A concrete table of launch, vendor, payment, data, and support risks.

RiskImpactOwnerMitigation

Refund workflow has no owner; assign support path before enabling paid checkout.

Vendor scorecard

Fit, burden, and tradeoffs

A comparison that separates feature match from integration and operating cost.

FitIntegrationCommercialOperational

Paddle wins launch tax coverage; direct processor wins control only after entitlement state becomes first-party.

Implementation review

First slice your team can build

A scoped path from decision to implementation without turning the review into a retainer.

SliceInterfaceTest gateRollback

Build checkout config as a read-only function first, then add webhook storage once sandbox events are captured.

Sanitized artifact package

See the shape before you buy.

A review does not end as a call recap. It ends as a small package your team can forward, challenge, and turn into work.

Redacted decision brief

Recommendation, rejected options, assumptions, evidence, and the next decision owner.

Risk register sample

Failure modes, owner handoffs, impact, and the control that lowers the risk.

Implementation path sample

First slice, interfaces, test gate, rollback point, and what not to build yet.

Formats

Price and duration are anchored before intake.

Final scope depends on the decision and material shared, but you should know the format, time box, and price band before sending context.

Focused working session

Price: Starts at $350
Duration: 60 to 90 minutes

One narrow decision with useful context already assembled.

Decision notes, key risks, and next actions.

Architecture review

Price: Starts at $1,500
Duration: 3 to 5 business days

Payments, AI, SaaS, or integration decisions that need written evidence.

Decision brief, risk register, and implementation path.

Decision sprint

Price: Starts at $3,500
Duration: 5 to 10 business days

A high-stakes vendor, architecture, or launch choice with multiple owners.

Memo package, scorecard, risk register, and stakeholder-ready recommendation.

Review paths

Pick the decision type.

The format stays consistent: decision boundary, proof, risk register, and next implementation path. The row you choose changes the system under review.

Payments architecture review

For teams choosing a payments model, reviewing a vendor path, or cleaning up a payment architecture before it gets expensive.

For:Founder, product lead, or engineering lead deciding how payments should work before launch.

Decision:Processor fit, merchant-of-record versus direct, settlement flow, entitlement, reconciliation, and failure handling.

You get:Recommended path, rejected options, risk register, webhook/idempotency checklist, and launch gaps. (Decision brief plus working session.)

AI system review

For builders who need the system to behave under messy inputs, partial context, provider failures, and user pressure.

For:Team evaluating an LLM, agent, retrieval, or MCP workflow that needs production discipline.

Decision:Model boundary, retrieval design, evaluation plan, data exposure, observability, and fallback behavior.

You get:Failure-mode map, evaluation checklist, architecture recommendations, and the first fixes to make. (Readiness memo plus review session.)

Integration decision review

For product and engineering teams that need a clean decision before code, vendors, and operations drift apart.

For:Team with a hard API, data-flow, vendor, or system-boundary decision.

Decision:Ownership boundary, data contract, retry/idempotency model, failure path, and release sequence.

You get:Target shape, sequence diagram, integration risks, and a practical first implementation slice. (Design review memo plus implementation path.)

Focused advisory session

Best when the question is narrow enough to solve in one session and important enough to prepare for.

For:Founder or builder with one sharp question, useful context, and a near-term decision.

Decision:Vendor read, design review, roadmap tradeoff, launch risk, or technical operating question.

You get:Decision notes, key risks, next actions, and what not to spend time on next. (60 to 90 minute working session with written notes.)

Credibility

The written answer is the point.

Doric Stack is an enterprise-grade technical studio. The public surface stays inspectable: released apps, public tools, written reasoning, and product proof records.

Decision memo

A recommendation, the rejected paths, and the evidence that makes the call defensible.

Risk register

Payment, AI, vendor, data, security, and launch risks mapped to owners and controls.

Vendor scorecard

A structured comparison that separates feature fit, integration risk, commercial risk, and operating burden.

Implementation path

A concrete first slice: sequence, interfaces, failure handling, checkpoints, and what to avoid.

Fit, proof, method

Written answers fit decisions with real constraints.

The work is narrow by design: one decision, enough evidence to inspect, and a written path your team can use.

Good fit

You need a second set of senior eyes before a payments, AI, or integration decision.
You already have context, diagrams, product notes, or vendor material to review.
You want specific tradeoffs, risks, and next actions rather than a broad advisory call.

Not a fit

You need staff augmentation, implementation outsourcing, or a long retainer.
You want generic AI strategy without a concrete system, product, or decision.
You need legal, tax, compliance, or investment advice.

Proof base

Payments systems
AI systems
Builder judgment

Before paid work

Intake confirms the decision owner, available artifacts, deadline, risk level, and fit.

After the review

You leave with a decision artifact: recommendation, rejected paths, risks, and next moves.

Decision briefRisk registerImplementation pathVendor scorecard

01 Define the decision boundary
02 Map the system mechanics
03 Turn tradeoffs into a path

Proof base

Payments systems, AI systems, Builder judgment

Decision artifacts

Decision brief, Risk register, Implementation path, Vendor scorecard

Method

Define the decision boundary, Map the system mechanics, Turn tradeoffs into a path

Process

Frame the question, Review the system, Leave with a written path

Intake

Book the advisory intake.

1. Send the decision, deadline, and audience.
2. Attach diagrams, vendor notes, docs, or product context that can be shared.
3. Name the constraints, budget posture, and paths already rejected.
4. Email fallback remains available if the browser flow fails.

Open advisory intake Email fallback