This sounds like it's suggesting adding documentation of the major units, what their purposes are, as well as their interfaces. I agree with this. A map of the

This sounds like it's suggesting adding documentation of the major units, what their purposes are, as well as their interfaces. I agree with this. A map of the code is great. It's like an exploded-view drawing of a mechanical component. It helps highlight what goes where and connects how to what. ...but is this what "architecture" means? I was under the impression that architecture went beyond major-units-and-their-interfaces and had more to do with the decisions and assumptions that lead to those specific units and interfaces -- the why behind the what. In other words, the "architecture", in my view, is the thing we might go against when we refactor things. Not because names and interfaces change, but because the rationale for having things a certain way might still apply only we don't know about it because those assumptions and decisions -- the architecture -- is rarely documented and still would not be under this proposal.