Doric Stack Advisory

Make the architecture decision once.

Senior review for payment, AI, and integration decisions that carry real operating cost. Bring the system, the constraints, and the evidence. Leave with a written path your team can defend.

Start an engagementReview the engagement paths

Credibility

Judgment you can inspect.

Doric Stack is an enterprise-grade technical studio. The public surface stays inspectable: released apps, public tools, written reasoning, and product proof records.

01 / Production paths
Payment, treasury, and enterprise system work.
02 / Multi-rail systems
RTP, FedNow, ACH, wire, SWIFT, card, and settlement patterns.
03 / Applied AI tooling
Agentic commerce, multi-agent orchestration, model fine-tuning, and runtime governance.

Review paths

Choose the decision, not a retainer.

Every path starts with a defined decision boundary and ends with written findings. The subject changes. The standard does not.

Payments architecture review

For teams choosing a payments model, reviewing a vendor path, or cleaning up a payment architecture before it gets expensive.

For:Founder, product lead, or engineering lead deciding how payments should work before launch.
Decision:Processor fit, merchant-of-record versus direct, settlement flow, entitlement, reconciliation, and failure handling.
You get:Recommended path, rejected options, risk register, webhook/idempotency checklist, and launch gaps. (Decision brief plus working session.)

AI system review

For builders who need the system to behave under messy inputs, partial context, provider failures, and user pressure.

For:Team evaluating an LLM, agent, retrieval, or MCP workflow that needs production discipline.
Decision:Model boundary, retrieval design, evaluation plan, data exposure, observability, and fallback behavior.
You get:Failure-mode map, evaluation checklist, architecture recommendations, and the first fixes to make. (Readiness memo plus review session.)

Integration decision review

For product and engineering teams that need a clean decision before code, vendors, and operations drift apart.

For:Team with a hard API, data-flow, vendor, or system-boundary decision.
Decision:Ownership boundary, data contract, retry/idempotency model, failure path, and release sequence.
You get:Target shape, sequence diagram, integration risks, and a practical first implementation slice. (Design review memo plus implementation path.)

Focused advisory session

Best when the question is narrow enough to solve in one session and important enough to prepare for.

For:Founder or builder with one sharp question, useful context, and a near-term decision.
Decision:Vendor read, design review, roadmap tradeoff, launch risk, or technical operating question.
You get:Decision notes, key risks, next actions, and what not to spend time on next. (60 to 90 minute working session with written notes.)

Sample deliverables

Inspect the shape of the answer.

Each review ends in a decision artifact your team can challenge, forward, and turn into work. These are representative structures, never client material.

Decision memo

01

A defensible recommendation

One page of answer-first guidance for the decision owner.

RecommendationRejected pathsEvidenceNext move

Recommend merchant-of-record for launch, with direct processing deferred until reconciliation volume justifies it.

Architecture review

02

System shape and failure paths

A practical read on boundaries, ownership, data contracts, and operational risk.

Current shapeTarget boundaryFailure modeControl point

Move entitlement state behind the checkout callback boundary and make webhook replay idempotent before beta.

Risk register

03

Risks tied to owners

A concrete table of launch, vendor, payment, data, and support risks.

RiskImpactOwnerMitigation

Refund workflow has no owner; assign support path before enabling paid checkout.

Vendor scorecard

04

Fit, burden, and tradeoffs

A comparison that separates feature match from integration and operating cost.

FitIntegrationCommercialOperational

Paddle wins launch tax coverage; direct processor wins control only after entitlement state becomes first-party.

Implementation review

05

First slice your team can build

A scoped path from decision to implementation without turning the review into a retainer.

SliceInterfaceTest gateRollback

Build checkout config as a read-only function first, then add webhook storage once sandbox events are captured.

Sanitized artifact package

See the shape before you buy.

A review does not end as a call recap. It ends as a small package your team can forward, challenge, and turn into work.

01

Redacted decision brief

Recommendation, rejected options, assumptions, evidence, and the next decision owner.

02

Risk register sample

Failure modes, owner handoffs, impact, and the control that lowers the risk.

03

Implementation path sample

First slice, interfaces, test gate, rollback point, and what not to build yet.

Engagement depth

Know the band before intake.

Price and time are anchored up front. Intake confirms fit and the material required for a useful answer.

01 / Focused working session

Starts at $500

60 to 90 minutes

One narrow decision with useful context already assembled.

Decision notes, key risks, and next actions.

02 / Architecture review

Starts at $1,500

3 to 5 business days

Payments, AI, SaaS, or integration decisions that need written evidence.

Decision brief, risk register, and implementation path.

03 / Decision sprint

Starts at $3,500

5 to 10 business days

A high-stakes vendor, architecture, or launch choice with multiple owners.

Memo package, scorecard, risk register, and stakeholder-ready recommendation.

Working standard

A narrow question. Enough evidence. A usable answer.

Intake confirms the decision owner, available artifacts, deadline, risk level, and fit before paid work.

The review produces a recommendation, rejected paths, named risks, and next moves that survive the call.

Decision briefRisk registerImplementation pathVendor scorecard

Method

  1. 01

    Define the decision boundary

    We separate what must be decided now from what can wait, then name the constraints, failure modes, and success signals.

  2. 02

    Map the system mechanics

    For payments, AI, or integrations, the review follows money flow, data flow, control points, ownership, and operational handoffs.

  3. 03

    Turn tradeoffs into a path

    You leave with the viable options narrowed, the weak paths rejected, and the next implementation or vendor steps made explicit.

Proof base

Payments systems

Architecture judgment across onboarding, merchant models, settlement, reconciliation, disputes, and operating failure modes.

AI systems

Hands-on build work across LLM apps, MCP tooling, retrieval, evaluation, provider boundaries, and production hardening.

Builder judgment

The review stays tied to what can be built, tested, operated, and explained to the people who own the result.

Fit

Good fit

  • You need a second set of senior eyes before a payments, AI, or integration decision.
  • You already have context, diagrams, product notes, or vendor material to review.
  • You want specific tradeoffs, risks, and next actions rather than a broad advisory call.

Not a fit

  • You need staff augmentation, implementation outsourcing, or a long retainer.
  • You want generic AI strategy without a concrete system, product, or decision.
  • You need legal, tax, compliance, or investment advice.

Review sequence

  1. 01

    Frame the question

    You send the decision, current context, constraints, and any diagrams or docs that matter.

  2. 02

    Review the system

    I inspect the architecture, risks, tradeoffs, and operational edge cases before the session.

  3. 03

    Leave with a written path

    You get a written summary, decision path, and next actions tied to the package.

Advisory intake

Bring the decision that cannot stay vague.

The intake is a fit check, not a sales call. Send the decision, the deadline, and the evidence already on hand.

Start an engagementEmail fallback
  1. 01Send the decision, deadline, and audience.
  2. 02List the diagrams, vendor notes, docs, or product context available for follow-up.
  3. 03Name the constraints, budget posture, and paths already rejected.
  4. 04Email fallback remains available if the browser flow fails.