Case 001 · Architecture audit
Infrastructure Audit for a Compliance Platform
The review was commissioned to identify which infrastructure and delivery decisions could reduce recurring cost without shifting risk onto the platform team.
Engagement facts
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Client | Compliance and fraud prevention platform, regulated markets |
| Counterpart | Platform engineering team |
| Period | 2023 |
| Format | Three weeks, part-time and remote, closing with one week embedded on site |
| Fee | CAD $23,000 plus travel |
Review lenses applied
Cost and commercial efficiency, operational excellence, reliability, architecture, and scale were reviewed together. The aim was to distinguish immediate purchasing or configuration changes from structural work.
Measured outcome
A recurring annual infrastructure saving of roughly ten times the audit fee, banked from decisions taken inside the three weeks.
How the review ran
- Billing, utilization, inventory, and architecture were mapped remotely.
- The team walked the release path and operational work with Blobb during one embedded week.
- Options were costed and read out to engineering and the executive sponsor.
Findings register
| ID | Finding | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| F-01 | Fleet lifecycle rules kept capacity in service after its useful window. A contained policy change could remove recurring cost. | Immediate |
| F-02 | The purchasing model did not match the stable part of the workload. Break-even points identified a lower-cost commitment mix. | Immediate |
| F-03 | The release path concentrated risk and manual work in a small number of steps. Automation and separation were sequenced. | Structural |
| F-04 | The architecture remained credible for current load, but specific shared dependencies widened the failure radius. | Watch |
| F-05 | The cost curve rose faster than the expected scale curve because capacity and commitments were planned separately. | Structural |
What was left with the client
A findings register, cost model, purchasing options, release-path improvements, architecture benchmark, scale thresholds, and a ninety-day action list.
Client identity is available under NDA. Figures as measured at engagement close.
The architecture audit explains the method used here. Book a call to discuss a similar review.