Communication Decision Guides

Review board success depends on making rapid, defensible decisions about time allocation and presentation strategy. The flowcharts below cover the key communication and presentation choices.

How to use these guides

Internalize this decision logic before the board. These charts will not be available during the exam, but having practiced the reasoning, you can make confident decisions under pressure and explain your rationale if challenged.

---

Opening the presentation. The first 5 minutes set the tone for everything that follows. Judges decide quickly whether the candidate understood the scenario. The opening formula that consistently works: state the company type and industry, name the 2-3 critical business drivers that shaped the architecture, declare any assumptions made to resolve ambiguity, and preview the overall architectural philosophy in a single sentence. Common mistakes: opening with technology (“I’m going to use Sales Cloud and MuleSoft…”) rather than business context; spending too long recapping the scenario verbatim; or skipping assumption declaration entirely. What the board is assessing: scenario comprehension, confidence, and ability to frame a complex problem at the right altitude for a CXO audience.

Time management under pressure. The 45-minute window always feels shorter than it did in practice. The pacing checkpoints matter: if the System Landscape and Data Model are not complete by minute 15, the candidate is behind and must drop detail on lower-priority artifacts to recover. The instinct to slow down and add more detail when nervous is exactly wrong — every extra minute on a mid-tier artifact takes time from the close. The correct recovery: acknowledge what you are skipping (“In the interest of time, I’ll summarize the reporting requirements…”), cover it briefly, and move on. What the board is assessing: prioritization judgment, composure under constraint, and ability to deliver a complete architectural story within a fixed window.

1. How to Allocate 180 Minutes

The 180-minute preparation phase is the most constrained resource. This flowchart shows how to allocate time based on scenario complexity.

Figure 1. Time allocation decision tree for the 180-minute prep phase. The branching point is system count: integration-heavy scenarios shift time toward diagrams, while org-strategy scenarios invest more in solution design.

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 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 carry equal weight. This decision tree helps with prioritization when time is limited.

Figure 2. Diagram prioritization guide based on what the scenario emphasizes. After the top three diagrams are complete, remaining time determines whether a fourth diagram adds value or whether polishing the existing three scores higher.

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

Figure 3. Detail level guide for each artifact type. The readability gate at the end prevents over-engineering: if a judge cannot read it on a shared screen, the diagram loses points regardless of its technical accuracy.

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

---

Handling hostile Q&A. The board’s Q&A is designed to stress-test the design. Some judges press hard even on correct answers to test conviction. The mental model that works: treat every question as “help me understand” rather than an attack. The STAR-A framework — Situation (restate the challenge), Think (visible pause of 3-5 seconds), Answer (specific response), Rationale (requirements-tied reasoning), Adapt (revise if warranted) — provides the scaffolding for any question type. The most dangerous moments are when a judge identifies a genuine flaw; the correct response is immediate acknowledgment and on-the-spot revision, not defense. What the board is assessing: architectural maturity, intellectual honesty, and the composure to incorporate feedback under pressure.

Trade-off defense. Every major architectural decision in the CTA exam has at least two viable alternatives. Judges will ask “Why not X?” for the most important decisions. The trade-off formula structures a complete answer: state what was chosen and why it ties to specific requirements; name the alternatives considered; explain the specific limitation that ruled each alternative out in this context (not “generally” — in this scenario); state the trade-off explicitly (what you gave up); and describe the mitigation. The formula can be practiced until it is reflexive. Common mistakes: defending choices as “industry best practice” without scenario-specific reasoning; not knowing the limitations of the approach chosen; or treating “Why not X?” as an accusation rather than an invitation to demonstrate depth. What the board is assessing: depth of platform knowledge, ability to compare and contrast approaches, and judgment in selecting appropriate solutions for specific contexts.

4. When to Stand Firm vs Adapt in Q&A

Figure 4. Q&A response routing based on whether a judge is introducing new information or testing conviction. Standing firm, adapting, and honest gap acknowledgment are all valid outcomes depending on the situation.

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

Figure 5. Domain coverage strategy based on scenario balance. All three paths converge on Q&A prep notes to ensure no domain goes completely unaddressed, protecting against a zero score in any single domain.

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 the conclusion, do a rapid sweep: “Let me confirm I have addressed all seven domains.” Then list each domain with a one-sentence summary. This signals awareness of the full scoring rubric even if time forced deeper coverage 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)