Use this template

Keep it factual and compressed. The goal is not to prove your team is right. The goal is to make the architecture legible enough to assess whether a fixed-scope verdict format applies.

Landscape

List the relevant S/4 systems, BTP runtimes, entry surfaces, identity chain, and tenant model. Only include what materially shapes runtime truth.

Observed divergence

State what works, what fails, where it fails, and which tenant, path, or user group exposes the difference.

Timeline

Include go-live date, relevant rollout or hardening milestones, and the moment the divergence became visible.

Ownership map

Name the current owners for application, BTP/platform, security or identity, integration, and any vendor or SI layer.

Decision that cannot converge

Describe the decision itself, the competing interpretations, and the business consequence of delay. This is usually more important than the incident chronology.

Known constraints

Add only the constraints that materially bound the verdict: release windows, compliance posture, clean core restrictions, contractual boundaries, or pre-committed rollout obligations.

What not to include

Do not attach every log, ticket, or meeting note. Do not turn the intake into a defense brief. The first pass is for classification, not exhaustive evidence handling.

Copyable template

Landscape:
- S/4 system(s):
- BTP runtime(s):
- Entry surfaces:
- Identity chain:
- Tenant model:

Observed divergence:
- What works:
- What fails:
- Where it fails:
- Which tenant/path/user group:

Timeline:
- Go-live date:
- Recent changes:
- When the divergence appeared:

Ownership:
- Application owner:
- Platform/BTP owner:
- Security/identity owner:
- Integration owner:
- Vendor/SI owner:

Decision that cannot converge:
- The decision:
- Competing interpretations:
- Business consequence if delayed: