Communication Decision Guides
CTA review board success depends on making rapid, defensible decisions about how to spend your time and present your solution. This page provides decision flowcharts for the most critical communication and presentation choices.
How to use these guides
Internalize the decision logic before the board. You will not have these charts during the exam, but having practiced the reasoning, you can make confident decisions under pressure and explain your rationale if challenged.
1. How to Allocate 180 Minutes
The 180-minute preparation phase is your most constrained resource. This flowchart helps you allocate time based on scenario complexity.
flowchart TD
A[180 Minutes Begin] --> B[Read Scenario Thoroughly<br/>15-20 min]
B --> C{How many systems<br/>in the scenario?}
C -->|"2-3 systems"| D[Standard Allocation]
C -->|"4+ systems"| E[Integration-Heavy Allocation]
C -->|"1 system, complex BU"| F[Org-Strategy Allocation]
D --> D1["Solution Design: 60 min<br/>Diagrams: 50 min<br/>Slides/Narrative: 30 min<br/>Review & Polish: 20 min"]
E --> E1["Solution Design: 50 min<br/>Integration Diagrams: 60 min<br/>Slides/Narrative: 25 min<br/>Review & Polish: 15 min"]
F --> F1["Solution Design: 70 min<br/>Diagrams: 40 min<br/>Slides/Narrative: 30 min<br/>Review & Polish: 20 min"]
D1 --> G[15-Min Break]
E1 --> G
F1 --> G
G --> H[Present 45 min + Q&A 40-90 min]
Time Allocation Table
| Phase | Standard | Integration-Heavy | Org-Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Read & analyze scenario | 20 min | 15 min | 20 min |
| Solution design (notes) | 60 min | 50 min | 70 min |
| Diagram creation | 50 min | 60 min | 40 min |
| Slides / narrative | 30 min | 25 min | 30 min |
| Review & polish | 20 min | 15 min | 20 min |
| Buffer | 0 min | 15 min | 0 min |
The time trap
The number one mistake candidates make is spending too long on diagrams and running out of time for the narrative. Set a hard timer for each phase. An incomplete but well-structured presentation scores better than beautiful diagrams with no story.
2. Which Diagrams to Create First
Not all diagrams are equally valuable. This decision tree helps prioritize when time is limited.
flowchart TD
A[Start Diagramming Phase] --> B{What does the scenario<br/>emphasize most?}
B -->|"Multi-system integration"| C["1st: Integration/Data Flow<br/>2nd: System Landscape<br/>3rd: Security Model"]
B -->|"Complex org structure"| D["1st: System Landscape<br/>2nd: Data Model<br/>3rd: Integration Flow"]
B -->|"Data migration/LDV"| E["1st: Data Model (ERD)<br/>2nd: Migration Flow<br/>3rd: System Landscape"]
B -->|"Security/compliance"| F["1st: Security Architecture<br/>2nd: System Landscape<br/>3rd: Data Flow"]
C --> G{Time remaining<br/>after top 3?}
D --> G
E --> G
F --> G
G -->|"20+ min"| H["Add: Deployment Diagram<br/>or Sequence Diagrams"]
G -->|"10-19 min"| I["Add: Simplified 4th Diagram"]
G -->|"< 10 min"| J["Stop. Polish existing 3."]
The “Big 3” Priority Matrix
| Scenario Signal | Diagram 1 (Must) | Diagram 2 (Should) | Diagram 3 (Nice-to-have) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple external systems | Integration / Data Flow | System Landscape | Security Model |
| Complex business units | System Landscape (Org) | Data Model (ERD) | Integration Flow |
| Large data volumes / migration | Data Model (ERD) | Migration / ETL Flow | System Landscape |
| Regulatory / compliance focus | Security Architecture | System Landscape | Data Flow |
| Multi-cloud Salesforce | System Landscape | License / Cloud Map | Integration Flow |
3. How Much Detail Per Artifact
flowchart TD
A[Creating an Artifact] --> B{What type?}
B -->|"System Landscape"| C["HIGH LEVEL<br/>Boxes = systems<br/>Lines = integrations<br/>Labels = pattern names"]
B -->|"Data Flow / Integration"| D["MEDIUM DETAIL<br/>Show direction, protocol,<br/>frequency, error handling<br/>approach"]
B -->|"Data Model (ERD)"| E["SELECTIVE DETAIL<br/>Key objects + relationships<br/>Only fields that drive<br/>architecture decisions"]
B -->|"Sequence Diagram"| F["FOCUSED<br/>One specific flow<br/>Show error path<br/>Max 8-10 steps"]
C --> G{Is the diagram<br/>readable from 6 feet?}
D --> G
E --> G
F --> G
G -->|"No"| H["REDUCE: Remove labels,<br/>merge boxes, simplify"]
G -->|"Yes"| I["Good. Move to next artifact."]
Detail Level Guidelines
| Artifact | Include | Exclude |
|---|---|---|
| System Landscape | System names, cloud boundaries, integration arrows, user types | Field-level detail, specific Apex classes, individual flows |
| Integration Diagram | Direction, protocol, frequency, error strategy, middleware | Every API endpoint, payload schemas, exact field mappings |
| Data Model | Key objects, lookup vs master-detail, polymorphic relationships | Standard fields, page layouts, validation rules |
| Sequence Diagram | Happy path + one error path, actor labels, key decision points | Every possible exception, internal method calls |
4. When to Stand Firm vs Adapt in Q&A
flowchart TD
A["Judge Challenges<br/>Your Decision"] --> B{Is the judge presenting<br/>new information not<br/>in the scenario?}
B -->|"Yes"| C{Does the new info<br/>fundamentally change<br/>the architecture?}
C -->|"Yes"| D["ADAPT: Acknowledge the<br/>change and explain how<br/>your design would adjust"]
C -->|"No"| E["ACKNOWLEDGE + HOLD:<br/>'Good point. My design<br/>handles this because...'"]
B -->|"No — challenging<br/>your reasoning"| F{Do you have a clear<br/>justification tied to<br/>scenario requirements?}
F -->|"Yes"| G["STAND FIRM: Restate<br/>the trade-off and<br/>scenario-specific reason"]
F -->|"No"| H{Is there a<br/>defensible alternative?}
H -->|"Yes"| I["PIVOT: 'On reflection,<br/>[alternative] better serves<br/>this scenario because...'"]
H -->|"No"| J["BE HONEST: 'That is a<br/>gap in my design.<br/>I would address it by...'"]
Q&A Response Framework
| Judge Behavior | What They Want | Your Response |
|---|---|---|
| ”Why not [alternative]?” | Show you considered it | ”I considered [alt]. The trade-off is [X]. I chose [yours] because [scenario reason]." |
| "What if [new constraint]?” | Test adaptability | ”That changes [aspect]. I would adjust by [modification] while keeping [core design]." |
| "This won’t work because…” | Test depth of knowledge | Validate claim. If true: adapt. If debatable: defend with evidence. |
| ”Tell me more about [area]“ | Probe depth | Go one level deeper. Specifics: API names, governor limits, config steps. |
| Silence after your answer | Waiting for you to elaborate | Add the trade-off you accepted and how you mitigate it. |
5. How to Prioritize Domain Coverage in Limited Time
flowchart TD
A["Scenario Analysis Complete"] --> B["Identify which domains<br/>the scenario emphasizes"]
B --> C{How many domains<br/>are heavily tested?}
C -->|"2-3 dominant"| D["Deep coverage on<br/>dominant domains<br/>Touch all 7 briefly"]
C -->|"4-5 balanced"| E["Moderate depth on<br/>each, prioritize by<br/>point value"]
C -->|"All 7 equally"| F["Structured sweep:<br/>2-3 min per domain<br/>depth on integration<br/>& security"]
D --> G["Allocate 60% of<br/>presentation time to<br/>dominant domains"]
E --> H["Allocate evenly but<br/>lead with strongest<br/>domain"]
F --> I["Lead with integration<br/>(highest failure rate)<br/>then security"]
G --> J["Touch remaining domains<br/>in Q&A prep notes"]
H --> J
I --> J
Domain Coverage Strategy
| Scenario Type | Lead With | Depth On | Touch Briefly |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-system enterprise | Integration (D5) | Security (D2), Data (D3) | All others |
| Complex org / multi-BU | System Arch (D1) | Solution Arch (D4), Governance (D6) | All others |
| Data-heavy / migration | Data (D3) | Integration (D5), Security (D2) | All others |
| Regulated industry | Security (D2) | Governance (D6), Data (D3) | All others |
The “7-domain sweep” technique
In your presentation conclusion, do a rapid sweep: “Let me confirm I have addressed all seven domains.” Then list each domain with a one-sentence summary of your approach. This signals to judges that you are aware of the full scoring rubric even if time forced you to go deeper on some domains than others.
Cross-Domain Connections
- Review Board Artifacts — specific artifact creation guidance and Lucidchart techniques
- Review Board Presentation & Q&A — presentation structure, storytelling, and Q&A strategies
- Domains & Scoring — understanding the 7-domain scoring rubric that drives your prioritization
- Scenario Patterns — how to read scenarios and identify domain emphasis
Sources
- CTA coaches (Andrew Hart, Mike Gill, Apex Hours panel)
- Ladies Be Architects community guidance
- CTA Gang of Four mock scenario analysis
- FlowRepublic CTA coaching framework
- Successful CTA candidates’ retrospectives (2024-2026)