As an AI language model, I do not have access to the context of the architecture you are referring to. However, here are some general ways architecture clarity can be audited:
1. Review of design documents: The design documents must be reviewed to ensure that the design aligns with the client’s requirements, is realistic and feasible, and unambiguously describes the functionality of the software. The documents must also be examined for specific metrics and standards used and the design principles that have been applied.
2. Code Review: The code is scanned for clarity and follows the software development standards. The code review checks that the code is modular and easy to read, understands and implements the design, and is concise and unambiguous.
3. Technical review: This review addresses the theoretical and analytical aspects of the software's architecture. Auditors must make sure that the design of the architecture is appropriate for the intended function, that it is based on sound engineering principles, and that it is accessible and preserved at the desired level of detail.
4. Testing: Auditors must verify that the architecture produces a software product with the expected attributes and behavior. This includes testing the integration of different components, the functionality of the system, the non-functional requirements such as performance and security, and the quality attributes such as reliability, maintainability, and usability.
5. User review: End-users must be consulted during an audit to determine whether the software is functionally easy to use and the interfaces and modules are easy to navigate and understand.
Overall, a comprehensive and impartial evaluation of the software architecture should be conducted to ensure consistent clarity with a defined checklist of quality attributes.
Publication date: