Architecture of Record (AoR)

Architecture of Record (AoR)

AoR defines where execution control must exist — the points where execution can bind consequence.

It maps where automated systems bind institutional consequence, and where execution authority must be constructed at the moment of commit (T=0).

Without an Architecture of Record, organisations do not know where execution is occurring without control.

Why this matters

Most organisations:

• map systems
• model data
• govern decisions

But they do not map where execution binds consequence.

Without this, authority is assumed, execution surfaces remain invisible, and control cannot be enforced.

🔗 Core Links

• Execution Admissibility Architecture
• SCIA Runtime Reference Architecture
• Authority Pressure Test
• Category Overview
• Canonical Definitions — Execution Admissibility Architecture

Definition

Architecture of Record functions as the enterprise commit map — the structural topology that defines where automated systems bind institutional consequence.

It is the authoritative map of where execution authority must exist within the enterprise.

Intelligence may propose. Architecture determines what may execute.

Purpose

AoR exists because authority is not inherent in automated execution.

It provides the structural map of where automated systems can create institutional consequence by mutating enterprise state.

This architecture enables organisations to govern execution and maintain accountability as AI and automation scale.

Scope

AoR applies to enterprise systems where automated execution can bind consequence, including systems that control:

• financial transactions
• contract activation
• capital commitment
• infrastructure mutation
• regulatory reporting

AoR focuses on execution surfaces and authority boundaries.

It does not replace application architecture, data architecture, or integration architecture.

IP boundary

Arqua does not transfer its proprietary internal framework.

Client engagements may produce client-specific Architecture of Record artefacts derived from the Arqua architecture.

The Automation Governance Gap

Modern enterprises increasingly rely on automated systems, AI, and software workflows to execute payments, contract activation, infrastructure changes, and regulatory filings.

Most enterprise architecture practices map systems, applications, data flows, and integrations.

Very few explicitly map where automated systems can bind institutional consequence.

As automation and AI scale across enterprises, this architectural gap becomes increasingly critical.

Organisations therefore lack an authoritative map of where execution can create irreversible or externally consequential state transitions.

Architectural Model

AoR maps the path from signal to consequence.

It identifies where automated execution must be governed.

Signals and Intelligence

Events, analytics, models, and inputs that inform decisions.

Decision Systems

Systems that generate proposals, approvals, or candidate actions.

Execution Surfaces

Systems where execution binds institutional consequence by mutating state.

Institutional Consequence

Financial, legal, operational, or regulatory outcomes.

Core Structural Elements

AoR identifies four key structural elements that define where automated execution must be governed.

Execution Surfaces

Systems where automated execution can bind institutional consequence.

Consequence Systems

Systems responsible for financial, legal, infrastructure, or regulatory commitments.

Authority Boundaries

Actors, systems, or processes authorised to trigger consequence-bearing state transitions.

Admissibility Control Points

Non-bypassable checkpoints where admissibility must be re-resolved before consequence binds.

Institutional Consequence Topology

Institutional consequence occurs when execution results in:

• movement of money
• activation of contracts
• commitment of capital
• mutation of infrastructure
• creation of regulatory records

These execution surfaces define the institutional consequence topology of the enterprise.

The Architecture of Record identifies where authority becomes consequential.

Authority Lifecycle Integrity evaluates whether authority remained structurally coherent before reaching those consequence-bearing surfaces.

Relationship to Execution Admissibility Architecture

Execution Admissibility Architecture becomes implementable when an organisation maps its Architecture of Record — the structural topology of where automated systems can bind institutional consequence.

These mapped boundaries define where execution authority must be constructed and where admissibility must be enforced.

This preserves the governing separation:

• Decision (what could happen)
• Admissibility (what is allowed to happen, re-resolved at execution)
• Execution (what actually happens)

Upstream Recommendation Pathways

Recommendation Integrity can identify recommendation pathways that may later become execution surfaces.

Where a recommendation moves toward consequence-bearing action — such as approval, contract, payment, procurement, work order, capital release, lease execution, acquisition, or divestment — it may become a candidate for Architecture of Record mapping.

The Architecture of Record remains focused on execution surfaces where actions bind institutional consequence. Recommendation Integrity helps identify which upstream recommendations may require that mapping.

Where Execution Passports are required

Architecture of Record identifies where institutional consequence binds and where execution control must exist. In AI-mediated or automated workflows, AoR also identifies where an Execution Passport must be presented for validation before action is allowed to cross the commit boundary.

The Execution Passport does not replace AoR. AoR maps the execution surfaces, authority boundaries, and admissibility control points. The passport carries the authority-state claim for a proposed action. SCIA Runtime validates that claim at T=0.

Related paper: The Desynchronization of Authority

AoR defines where control must exist.

SCIA Runtime enforces that control at execution.

Once execution surfaces and authority boundaries are mapped, runtime admissibility enforcement can be implemented through SCIA Runtime — Stateful Contextual Integrity Architecture (SCIA).

SCIA Runtime governs state transitions, not decisions.

It enforces the invariant:

No state transition without proven integrity.

SCIA Runtime ensures that system state can only move forward if its integrity can be proven at the moment of execution.

How AoR is created

AoR is not created from documentation.

It is surfaced through the Pre-Execution Pressure Test™.

The Pressure Test:

• identifies uncontrolled execution surfaces
• reveals implicit authority
• produces the first execution topology

Next step

Start with one high-consequence decision. Identify where execution is currently uncontrolled.

Architecture of Record Engagement

Most organisations develop their AoR through a structured engagement focused on:

• mapping execution surfaces
• identifying consequence systems
• defining authority boundaries
• establishing admissibility control points
• producing the institutional consequence topology of the enterprise

Deliverables

• mapped execution topology
• identified execution surfaces and consequence systems
• authority boundary definitions
• admissibility control points
• architectural recommendations for implementing Execution Admissibility Architecture

Next Steps

• Execution Admissibility Architecture
• The architectural discipline governing admissible execution.
• SCIA Runtime Reference Architecture
• The runtime architecture that governs state transitions through integrity at execution.
• Execution Admissibility Architecture — Architecture Map
• Layered map of the execution admissibility stack.
• Authority Pressure Test
• Diagnostic that identifies uncontrolled execution surfaces.

Final insight

If you do not know where execution binds consequence,

you cannot control it.

© Arqua Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.