Two questions answered on one page. How does the AS get delivered across teams — the SAFe delivery governance layer. And what does each team actually build — the product design layer that bridges architecture to implementation.
The TOGAF ADM produced the architecture. The SAFe Solution Train is the delivery governance model that organises the teams that implement it. They are complementary frameworks operating at different altitudes — architecture defines the target state, SAFe defines the cadence, coordination, and cross-team dependency management that gets the enterprise there.
Each ART owns a capability domain from the Phase B Business Architecture. The Platform ART is the foundation — all other ARTs depend on its shared enablers. Cross-cutting concerns (HITL, XAI, data fabric, security) are explicit features in the Platform ART backlog, not implicit assumptions in each domain ART.
These are the artifacts a Solution Train Architect produces at PI Planning — the PI Objectives committed to by each ART for the foundation horizons, and the cross-ART dependency board that makes integration blockers visible before they become integration failures. Both are notional at design phase; they become the live planning artifacts at the first PI event.
| Feature needed | Supplier ART | Consumer ART(s) | Needed by | Risk | Resolution / mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HITL state machine contract Platform · PI-2 |
Platform ART | Commercial Financial Operations | Start of PI-3 | High | Platform ART commits to publishing shared HITL interface contract by week 16 of PI-2. All domain ARTs stub against interface in PI-2 so they can build HITL integration in PI-3 without waiting for full implementation. |
| SHAP explanation pipeline Platform · PI-2 |
Platform ART | Financial Operations | Start of PI-3 | High | XAI layer must be live before RevRec AI and Asset IQ can produce compliant EU AI Act inferences. Platform ART PI-2 stretch objective covers initial integration — Financial and Operations ARTs validate against it in PI-3. |
| Pub/Sub topic schema Platform · PI-1 |
Platform ART | Commercial Operations | Week 8 of PI-1 | Medium | Event schema for q2c-events and asset-events must be published before Commercial and Operations ARTs begin publishing. Platform ART commits to schema publication at week 8. Changes after this point require an ADR amendment. |
| Salesforce REST API integration Commercial · PI-1 |
Commercial ART | Financial Platform | Start of PI-2 | Medium | RevRec AI triggers on Salesforce contract signed event via Pub/Sub. Financial ART depends on Commercial ART's Salesforce integration being live and publishing events before RevRec AI can be end-to-end tested. |
| Vertex AI Feature Store entities Platform · PI-1 |
Platform ART | Financial Operations | Start of PI-3 | Low | Feature Store entity definitions (Contract, Device, Transaction feature groups) must be provisioned before domain ART ML models can write or read features. Entity schemas agreed cross-ART at PI-1 Planning; provisioning in PI-1. |
Cross-cutting concerns that span multiple ARTs must be explicitly owned and explicitly governed. In the AS Solution Train, these four enablers live in the Platform ART backlog and are released as shared capabilities before the dependent ARTs can build. This is what makes the Solution Train coherent rather than four independent teams building in parallel and discovering integration problems at the end.
The stakeholder register on Page 02 captured who has sign-off authority. These persona cards capture who actually uses the AS day-to-day — their goals, frustrations, and what success looks like for them. Every user story in the FRD is written for one of these five people.
An MRI deal for ClaraVis AG — from first hospital inquiry to revenue posted in SAP. Five journey stages. Every persona's touchpoint at each stage. The AS module handling it. The HITL checkpoint where human judgment is required.
Every user story maps to a Page 02 requirement, a Page 03 ADR, an EU AI Act obligation, a Work Package from Page 03 Phase F, and a HITL or XAI specification. These are the handover documents from the architecture engagement to the development teams — precise enough to build from, not so prescriptive they constrain implementation choices.
The complete HITL specification for the AS — the artifact that satisfies EU AI Act Article 14 documentation requirements. Every checkpoint with its trigger condition, the agent action that precedes it, what the human reviewer sees, their decision options, the SLA, and the audit record format. This table is the contract between the architecture and the EU AI Act compliance team.
| ID | Module | Trigger Condition | What Human Sees | Decision Options | SLA | Timeout Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HITL-01 | CCAI Sales Agent | Turn 11 reached OR commercial terms entered | Deal brief: hospital profile, clinical requirements, validated configuration, estimated price range, conversation transcript | Engage dealReturn to agent |
4 hours | Escalate to VP Sales |
| HITL-02 | ContractGuard | Clause risk score above Legal threshold (configurable) | Clause text, risk score, top 3 similar precedent contracts, draft counter-position, SHAP feature attribution | Approve as-isRequest revisionExternal counsel |
24 hours | Escalate to GC's manager |
| HITL-03 | ContractGuard | Governing law non-standard for ClaraVis jurisdiction | Governing law clause, jurisdiction risk summary, ClaraVis standard terms comparison | AcceptCounter-proposeLegal review |
48 hours | Pause contract progression |
| HITL-04 | RevRec AI | All ASC 606 classifications — no threshold exception | Classification result, confidence score, SHAP chart (top 5 features), 3 similar historical transactions, one-click approve or override | Approve → SAPOverride + reason |
4 hours | Escalate to CFO |
| HITL-05 | RevRec AI | Multi-element arrangement detected — split required | Proposed performance obligation split, ASC 606 rule applied, SSP references, contract line items | Approve splitManual split |
8 hours | Escalate to CFO |
| HITL-06 | Asset IQ | RUL prediction confidence below configured threshold | Unit ID, predicted failure window, confidence score, top 3 SHAP sensor features, current sensor readings vs baseline | Schedule maintenanceDismiss with reasonOn-site verify |
8 hours | Auto-schedule preventive |
| HITL-07 | Asset IQ | Fleet-level anomaly detected (cross-regional pattern) | Affected units, pattern description, region distribution, severity score, recommended fleet action | Fleet alertIsolated incidentsRecall review |
2 hours | Auto-escalate to VP Field |
| HITL-08 | FinRisk Sentinel | Anomaly score above high-severity threshold | Event type, magnitude, Z-score vs 90-day baseline, affected entity, SHAP explanation, recommended action | Acknowledge + actFalse positiveCFO escalation |
1 hour | Auto-escalate CFO + audit |
| HITL-09 | RevRec AI | Model confidence below minimum threshold (any classification) | Transaction detail, model confidence score, reason for low confidence, request for manual classification | Manual classifySenior review |
4 hours | Hold transaction, alert CFO |
| HITL-10 | ML Platform | Drift detected above threshold — retraining triggered | Drift metric, baseline vs current distribution, proposed retraining scope, estimated timeline, Model Card diff | Approve retrainHold and investigateML Engineer review |
24 hours | Hold model in production |
| HITL-11 | ML Platform | New model version ready for production promotion | Model Card diff (previous vs new), evaluation metrics comparison, bias analysis results, SHAP baseline comparison | Promote to prodReturn to staging |
48 hours | Model stays in staging |
The FRD and HITL specification on this page are the inputs to the Agent Swarm Architecture. Page 05 takes every HITL checkpoint above and expresses it as a formal state machine node in the ADK agent definition — the technical design that implements what was specified here.