Key Takeaways
Learn how to conduct an effective AWS architecture review that surfaces risks, prioritizes remediation, and sets a repeatable governance cadence. We align to Well-Architected best practices and the tools that make reviews measurable.
- Anchor on the six pillars and scope: Ground the review in the AWS Well-Architected Framework’s six pillars, clear workload scope, and timing triggers.
- Run Prepare – Review – Improve with the Tool: Follow a Prepare – Review – Improve flow with the AWS Well-Architected Tool to run reviews, capture risks, and generate workload reports.
- Govern through an ARB and lenses: Establish an Architecture Review Board to enforce governance, align stakeholders, and apply workload lenses for serverless, containers, or analytics.
- Prioritize and plan remediation: Prioritize high-risk findings, surface quick wins, and create a time-bound remediation plan with owners tracked in your backlog.
- Operationalize continuous reviews: Pre-collect evidence from AWS Config, Security Hub, Trusted Advisor, Compute Optimizer/Cost Explorer; tie risks to SLOs/cost; ADRs; 30/60/90 backlog.
- Measure outcomes and set cadence: Set KPIs and SLOs, measure improvements against them, and establish a recurring review cadence aligned to change management and governance.
Use these takeaways as a checklist while you move into the step-by-step process and detailed guidance. The next sections expand each point into practical actions.
Introduction
What if your next review produced a prioritized, measurable plan – not another slide deck? Grounded in the AWS Well-Architected Framework, an effective session scopes workload, aligns to the six pillars, and triggers at the right moments in your change cycle. This guide shows how to conduct an effective AWS architecture review that makes risks, costs, and reliability visible and actionable.
We will run a Prepare – Review – Improve workflow with the AWS Well-Architected Tool to capture findings, generate workload reports, and quantify high-risk items. You will see how an architecture review board enforces governance, applies lenses for serverless, containers, or analytics, and keeps stakeholders aligned to Well-Architected best practices. That way, each session produces decisions you can track rather than vague intentions.
Finally, we prioritize remediation, assign owners, and timebox a 30/60/90 backlog tied to SLOs, KPIs, and cost outcomes. We will pre-collect evidence from AWS Config, Security Hub, Trusted Advisor, and Compute Optimizer/Cost Explorer, record decisions as ADRs, and set a recurring cadence that fits change management. Let’s explore the step-by-step process.
How to conduct an effective AWS architecture review
Think of your review like a flight check before takeoff – focused, repeatable, and backed by real data. If you want to know how to conduct an effective AWS architecture review, start by scoping precisely what you are reviewing, mapping it to the Well-Architected pillars that matter most today, and agreeing on the events that should trigger a review in the future. Anchor decisions in the AWS Well-Architected Framework so the conversation stays objective and aligned to best practices.
Define workload boundaries and change triggers
The AWS Well-Architected Framework defines a workload as a set of components that deliver business value. Translating that into something you can actually review means drawing boundaries. Which accounts and regions? Which environments – dev, test, staging, prod? What is in the critical path for your user journey? If it helps, sketch a simple diagram and list dependencies: data stores, messaging, identity, networking, and external providers. Tag it mentally as “in scope” or “adjacent” so you do not debate every dependency in the review itself.
Next, clarify what “good” looks like in terms of availability targets, RTO and RPO, data classification, and compliance regimes. A payments API handling PCI data with a 99.95 percent availability target and 15-minute RPO is a very different review from an internal reporting pipeline with daily SLAs. Keep that snapshot visible during the AWS architecture review so the group can make trade-offs without rehashing context.
Now add change triggers, so you are not debating when to run the review. Common triggers include: a major architectural change, crossing a traffic threshold, a cost anomaly over a defined budget percent, a new regulatory requirement, or a significant incident. A practical rule of thumb is to run a full review at least annually for critical workloads, and whenever you ship a change that could materially impact reliability, security, or cost. This is how to conduct an effective AWS architecture review without it turning into a one-time checkbox exercise.
Map to operational excellence, security, reliability pillars
Start with the three pillars that tend to catch teams off guard under pressure: operational excellence, security, and reliability. In an AWS architecture review, these become your safety baseline and the fastest way to uncover weak spots. You will dig into performance, costs, and sustainability next, but these three set the safety baseline.
Operational excellence is about how you run and evolve the workload. Look for clear ownership, incident response runbooks, versioned infrastructure as code, continuous deployment with guardrails, and observability that shows business impact – not just CPU graphs. Use the AWS architecture review to stress test operational hygiene and confirm practices hold up during real incidents.
Security focuses on identity, detection, infrastructure protection, data protection, and incident response. The basics still bite: least-privilege IAM with role boundaries, centralized logging, encryption at rest and in transit, regular key rotation, and service level isolation where needed. An AWS architecture review highlights whether security is a living practice or a set-and-forget checkbox exercise.
Reliability addresses how your workload continues to work correctly during failures. Expect conversations about Multi-AZ architecture, retry and backoff strategies, idempotency, chaos testing, backup and restore drills, and quotas. If RDS is critical, ask to see the last successful recovery test. If you are running in a single Availability Zone, document the risk in plain language and decide deliberately – not by accident. Refer back to AWS’s Reliability Pillar guidance to calibrate how your choices affect availability and recovery.
Add performance efficiency, cost optimization, sustainability
Once the safety baseline is covered, widen the lens. Performance efficiency is about selecting and configuring resources to meet demand cost effectively. Validate autoscaling policies, cache hot paths, tune data access patterns, and pick the right compute – including Graviton where it makes sense. Arm yourself with actual load test data if you can. Within your AWS architecture review, be explicit about performance SLOs so tuning decisions have a target.
Cost optimization is where a lot of quick wins live. Confirm rightsizing using Compute Optimizer, check storage classes and lifecycle policies, optimize data transfer, and review Savings Plans or Reserved Instances coverage. If NAT gateway charges give you heartburn, you are not alone – evaluate PrivateLink, VPC endpoints, or architectural changes to limit cross-AZ or cross-region traffic. In your AWS architecture review, frame cost in unit economics that matter to the business, not just monthly totals.
Sustainability rounds out your system thinking. Reduce waste by turning off idle resources, consolidate low-utilization instances, choose regions with lower carbon intensity when feasible, and prefer managed services that increase utilization efficiency. Moving CPU-bound work to Graviton can improve performance per watt and cost simultaneously. Treat sustainability as a first-class topic in the AWS architecture review because it frequently aligns with cost and performance wins.
On the business side, Forbes 2025 analysis underscores that leadership cadence is pivotal for the Cost Optimization pillar, targeting idle and oversized capacity and sustaining savings beyond one-off efforts.
Prepare phase – stakeholders, evidence, governance
Preparation turns a long meeting into a focused decision forum. Before you sit down with a whiteboard and snacks, assemble the right people, pre-collect evidence from AWS services, and set up the AWS Well-Architected Tool so you can capture findings in a structured way. This is the most underrated part of how to conduct an effective AWS architecture review – the quality of the inputs determines the quality of the decisions.
For additional architectural alignment, AWS published 2025 guidance connecting twelve-factor application practices with Well-Architected reviews to strengthen runtime and operational characteristics.
Assemble stakeholders and architecture review board
Create a lightweight Architecture Review Board for your workload. It does not have to be bureaucratic. At minimum, include: the product owner, lead engineer or architect, security representative, SRE or platform lead, a FinOps partner, and someone who understands data governance if you process sensitive data. If your organization already has a central ARB, align with their charter and add workload-specific stakeholders. For guardrails and operating models, this Architecture Review Board guidance from AWS is a practical reference.
Define roles. A facilitator keeps the session on time and neutral. The workload owner answers questions and brings evidence. Domain experts weigh in only when their area is on the table – container security, networking, data protection, or cost modeling. Assign a scribe to capture decisions and action items in real time. You will thank yourself later when you are turning findings into a backlog.
Set expectations for the session: what is in scope, how decisions will be made, and how disagreements are resolved. Encourage brevity and evidence – screenshots, console states, configuration links, and metrics over descriptions. If something is not known, label it explicitly and create a follow-up. The ARB should feel like a helpful guardrail, not a hidden gatekeeper. That tone encourages candid discussion during the AWS architecture review and accelerates decision-making.
Pre-collect evidence from Config, Security Hub, Trusted Advisor
Turn your review from finger-in-the-wind to evidence-based by pre-pulling signals from AWS services across the accounts in scope. The fastest way to surface risks is to let the services tell you what is already broken. Doing this work ahead of the AWS architecture review keeps the live session focused on decisions instead of hunting for screenshots.
From AWS Config, export current evaluations for key managed rules: required encryption at rest for EBS, RDS, and S3, restricted security groups, public S3 block settings, and CloudTrail configuration. If you use an aggregator across an organization, filter to the accounts and regions that match your workload boundary. Capture noncompliant resources with resource IDs, tags, and last evaluation times.
From AWS Security Hub, pull the latest findings across the AWS Foundational Security Best Practices and any enabled standards like CIS AWS Foundations. Group by severity and product. Pay attention to recurring findings that come back after you fix them – that suggests missing guardrails. Note whether delegated administration is configured and whether findings are flowing into your central SIEM or ticketing system.
From AWS Trusted Advisor, review the cost optimization and security checks. Trusted Advisor is great for quick wins: idle load balancers, underutilized EC2 instances, RDS public accessibility, and S3 bucket permissions. Screenshot or export the recommendations, so you can translate them directly into remediation stories later. If you prefer a structured benchmark to compare across workloads, consider running a focused review like AWS & DevOps re:Align as part of preparation.
If you can, attach data from Compute Optimizer and Cost Explorer for a cost baseline: top spend by service, top accounts, and rightsizing recommendations. Knowing which instances run at 8 percent CPU or which EBS volumes are provisioned at io2 when gp3 would do gets you from debate to action quickly. Having this context available in the session trims back-and-forth and shortens decision time.
Configure AWS Well-Architected Tool workloads
The AWS Well-Architected Tool is your structured checklist and reporting engine. Create a workload in the tool for each system in scope with clear names that match your internal taxonomy: team, application, environment, region. Tag workloads with business unit, data classification, and criticality if you use tags for filtering reports.
Select the Framework and any relevant workload lenses upfront. Common lenses include Serverless, Container, and Analytics. If you know you will discuss Kubernetes on EKS or ETL pipelines, enable those lenses ahead of time so the questions appear in the session. Invite collaborators from the accounts involved, or share via your AWS Organizations management account if that is how your governance is set up.
Finally, decide how you will capture answers. Some teams like to pre-fill answers asynchronously with evidence links, then use the live session to validate and discuss only high-risk items. Others prefer to answer live. Both work. Just avoid “we will fill this later” because later never arrives.
Looking ahead, AWS introduced ways to accelerate reviews using Generative AI – integrating with the Well-Architected Tool to prepopulate answers and highlight likely risks.
Review phase – run AWS Well-Architected Review
With people, evidence, and the tool ready, you can run the review with momentum. Treat it like a structured interview plus a live sanity check against your cloud environment. The output should be a prioritized list of risks, not a litany of hypothetical maybes. Keep the discussion grounded in what matters during the AWS architecture review, not hypothetical edge cases.
Run AWS Well-Architected Framework pillar questionnaires
Work through each pillar in the tool. The questions will ask whether recommended practices are in place. Avoid “we intend to” answers. It is either implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. For each response, attach real evidence: a link to a Terraform module, a screenshot of Security Hub posture, or a runbook in your wiki. If evidence is not available, mark as a gap. During the AWS architecture review, agree on what “implemented” means so status is consistent across teams.
For operational excellence, validate version control for infrastructure, deployment automation, runbooks, and game days. Ask to see a recent incident postmortem and how lessons learned led to a change. For security, confirm service control policies, IAM boundaries, key management, network segmentation, and detection. For reliability, verify Multi-AZ usage, backups and recovery tests, throttling and retry patterns, and quotas in the regions you use. If you want to see where the industry is headed, skim the emerging trends in Well-Architected for 2025 and bring relevant points into your discussion.
As you answer, the tool will flag High-Risk Issues. Pause for those. Discuss impact and likelihood, not just whether the textbook says it is bad. A single-AZ database for a critical customer workflow is a different risk from a noncritical bucket without versioning. Capture context so your remediation plan can be right-sized.
Apply workload lenses for serverless, containers, analytics
Use lenses when your architecture includes patterns that need deeper scrutiny. They focus the conversation where general questions are not specific enough. This keeps your AWS architecture review relevant to the implementation details that actually drive outcomes.
For serverless, check function concurrency limits, event source configuration, idempotency, retries, and dead-letter queues. Review IAM policies for least privilege and whether you use AWS SAM or the Serverless Framework with stages and environments. Visibility matters – do you have end-to-end traces across API Gateway, Lambda, and DynamoDB? Cold starts are a concern only when they affect your SLOs, not because cold starts are scary by default.
For containers on EKS, check whether you use IAM Roles for Service Accounts, enforce cluster and network policies, and segregate sensitive workloads. Make sure the cluster autoscaler and application autoscaling are tuned based on real demand. Walk through your supply chain security: image scanning, signed images, and base image updates. Finally, confirm that NodeGroups or Fargate profiles match the scheduling needs, and that you are not running stateful components in ways that complicate recovery unnecessarily.
For analytics workloads, focus on data governance, storage and access patterns, and cost controls. Are S3 buckets encrypted with the right KMS keys and blocked from public access? Is the data lake cataloged and permissions managed with Lake Formation? Do you partition and compress data for cost-effective query performance, and are lifecycle policies moving cold data to lower-cost storage? Check if you are isolating dev and prod data to avoid accidental writes to the wrong bucket.
Beyond core lenses, AWS added a new Generative AI Lens in 2025, which you can enable when reviewing workloads that include foundation models or LLM orchestration.
Generate workload reports and HRI summaries
When you finalize the answers, generate the workload report from the Well-Architected Tool. Export the High-Risk Issues and medium risks with the context you captured. This report is not an end in itself – it is the front door to your remediation backlog. Treat it as the single source of truth for translating the AWS architecture review into delivery work.
Group HRIs by theme to simplify ownership: identity and access, data protection, resilience, observability, cost, and sustainability. Add a simple impact note for each: customer-facing downtime, regulatory exposure, data loss risk, or excess spend. For a few, turn the description into a crystal-clear action. For example: “RDS primary in single AZ with no tested point-in-time restore. Impact – downtime up to a full AZ event. Action – migrate to Multi-AZ and schedule quarterly restore tests.”
If you are not sure how to fix a finding, note that explicitly. Some items require a design spike, not a to-do task. For instance, eliminating a NAT bottleneck or reworking a multi-tenant identity model is design work. This is where your ARB shines – they can propose approaches, not just scold you for not being perfect.
Prioritize risks and plan remediation delivery
Now you decide what to do first. Not everything needs to be chased at once. You will prioritize by risk, cost, and effort, then convert the top items into a 30, 60, and 90-day plan. After the AWS architecture review, this is where insight becomes action and risk turns into a delivery roadmap.
Recent case evidence shows the payoff of disciplined reviews and remediation. In 2025, Box reported over $2.23M in savings while improving cost awareness and monitoring by aligning to the AWS Well-Architected Framework.
Triage high-risk issues and quick wins
Start with the no-brainers. Quick wins typically include enabling organization-wide CloudTrail with log file validation, turning on S3 Block Public Access at the account level, enforcing MFA and strong password policies, updating security groups that allow 0.0.0.0/0 on sensitive ports, and rightsizing underutilized instances identified by Compute Optimizer. These changes usually carry low risk and immediate benefit.
Then move to the “sleep-at-night” items that carry significant downside: moving critical data stores to Multi-AZ, enforcing KMS key policies and rotation, implementing backups with verified restores, and setting up basic WAF rules for public endpoints. If you have a single point of failure in the request path, fix that before polishing dashboards.
For the rest, use a simple scoring model. Weight impact to customers and the business, likelihood of occurrence, effort to remediate, and cost benefit if applicable. Many teams like WSJF – perceived business value plus risk reduction divided by effort. You do not need to be perfect, just transparent. Document why you ranked items the way you did so you can revisit if assumptions change.
Create time-bound 30/60/90 remediation backlog
Organize your top findings into a 30, 60, and 90-day backlog. The 30-day window is for quick wins and high-impact fixes with low complexity. The 60-day window is for items that require design but not major re-architecture. The 90-day window covers more complex changes that might need phased rollouts or broader stakeholder input.
Each backlog item should have crisp acceptance criteria. Not “improve reliability,” but “RDS migrated to Multi-AZ, PITR validated to 15 minutes, restore drill executed in staging with documented procedure.” For cost items, include a target: “Reduce EC2 spend by 12 percent via rightsizing and Savings Plans coverage uplift from 60 percent to 80 percent.” For observability, specify user-facing outcomes: “p95 checkout latency visible on a single dashboard with SLO alerts to the on-call rotation.”
Keep a small buffer for discoveries during implementation. You will uncover surprises – a dependency on a legacy IAM role, a forgotten cross-account connection, or a dashboard you thought existed. Expect it, plan for it, and keep momentum by adjusting the plan rather than abandoning it. If foundational changes are required, treat them as enabling work that may align with AWS & DevOps re:Build style initiatives that strengthen core architecture.
Assign owners and record Architecture Decision Records
Every item needs an owner and a deadline. Assign the person who can mobilize change, not just someone “close to the code.” For cross-team issues, consider a virtual tiger team with a named lead. Put the backlog into your normal delivery tool – Jira, Azure Boards, or GitHub Projects – and tag with “WAFR” so you can report progress later.
Capture decisions as Architecture Decision Records. Keep ADRs short and useful: Context, Decision, Alternatives considered, Consequences, and a link to related tickets and evidence. Examples include “Adopt Aurora PostgreSQL Multi-AZ for orders service,” “Introduce VPC endpoints to eliminate NAT data transfer for internal services,” and “Standardize on IRSA for EKS service accounts.” For patterns and templates, review AWS’s best practices for Architecture Decision Records and mirror the parts that fit your workflow.
Finally, connect each decision to the risk it mitigates and the SLO or cost outcome it supports. When your CFO asks why you increased storage costs by 8 percent, you will be able to answer, “To meet 99.9 percent reliability and reduce restoration time, as agreed in ADR-017,” not “Because the architect said so.”
Improve phase – implement controls and verify
Delivery is where trust is earned. You will implement changes, prove they work, and lock in guardrails so problems do not come back. This is also where the hidden multiplier lives: if you automate how you verify and record improvements, the next review gets exponentially easier. Treat this as the execution companion to your AWS architecture review.
Link risks to SLOs, KPIs, and cost outcomes
Translate findings into measurable outcomes. For reliability, define SLOs with clear objectives and error budgets. For example: 99.9 percent monthly availability with a 43-minute error budget. Tie remediation work directly to restoring error budget burn – Multi-AZ migration, retries and timeouts, or queue buffering.
For cost, use KPIs that matter to the business: cost per transaction, per active user, or per GB processed rather than a single blended compute line. Align changes to these KPIs. If shifting to Graviton reduces compute cost per transaction by 15 percent at equal or better latency, record that estimate and validate after rollout. Use Cost Explorer and CUR-based dashboards to verify trends. Cost without context is noise; cost linked to SLOs drives intelligent trade-offs.
For security, define posture KPIs like “critical Security Hub findings aged over 14 days is zero” and “IAM users without MFA is zero.” Measure mean time to remediate findings and track a steady burn-down. You are aiming for a reliable pipeline of fixes, not a frantic burst every audit season.
For long-term sustainability beyond the initial remediation, our AWS & DevOps re:Maintain service keeps improvements in place and continuously monitors operational health.
Implement governance and compliance guardrails
Put in preventive and detective controls so the same issues do not reappear. At the organization level, use AWS Organizations with Service Control Policies to block risky services or actions. For example, deny creation of public S3 buckets except in a specific account used for public assets. Standardize account baselines with AWS Control Tower or your custom landing zone so new accounts start compliant.
At the account and workload level, enforce tagging with Tag Policies, require encryption with Config rules, and integrate Security Hub findings with your incident management or ticketing systems. For identity, use IAM Identity Center with permission sets rather than long-lived IAM users. For EKS, enforce admission policies, signed images, and IRSA. For serverless, keep IAM policies at function scope minimal and use environment-specific parameter stores and secrets.
Add automated checks in your CI pipelines. Example gates include Terraform policy checks with tools like AWS Config conformance packs or Open Policy Agent rules evaluated locally, unit tests for infrastructure modules, and smoke tests that fail deployments if SLOs would be breached. The review should feel like a confirmation of controls, not the only time anyone checks posture.
Re-validate with Security Hub and Trusted Advisor
After changes land, re-run your evidence collectors. Confirm that Security Hub findings are resolved, not just suppressed. Check Trusted Advisor for a new snapshot of cost optimization and security status. For reliability, re-test recovery drills and chaos experiments and paste the results into your ADRs or runbooks. If a ticket claimed “issue resolved,” the tools should agree – otherwise it is not resolved yet.
Close the loop by updating the Well-Architected Tool workloads. Mark questions as implemented where appropriate and add notes with links to the code and documentation. This sets you up for your next cycle and prevents regressions as teams rotate. A brief changelog entry for each improvement helps future reviewers understand what changed and why.
For ongoing insights you can apply between review cycles, browse our blog with the latest articles.
Cadence, KPIs, and continuous review operations
The final step in how to conduct an effective AWS architecture review is turning it into a continuous loop that runs in the background of your delivery process. Reviews do not have to be heavy if evidence is collected automatically, decisions are documented, and progress is measured with clear metrics. Your goal is a rhythm that keeps architecture healthy without hijacking your roadmap.
Set review frequency and change management gates
Set a default cadence by criticality. For Tier 1 customer-facing workloads, run a full Well-Architected Review at least annually with quarterly checkpoints on posture metrics and cost. For Tier 2 or internal workloads, semiannual may be sufficient. Do not rely only on the calendar – trigger a review when there is a major change, a new compliance requirement, a significant incident, or a cost variance above a threshold you set.
Integrate the review with your change management gates. Before a new major version or architecture is released to production, run a targeted review focused on the changed areas and their pillar impacts. For example, introducing an event bus or moving from EC2 to EKS should trigger lens-specific questions and a mini review. Keep it light but real – it should feel like a pre-flight checklist, not a dissertation defense.
Define DOD – Definition of Done – for architecture-level changes. Examples include updated ADRs, pipelines passing policy checks, updated runbooks, and verified alarms and dashboards. If the work changes SLOs or costs materially, require a brief note in the change record describing the expected impact and how you will verify it after release.
Automate checkpoints with Config, Compute Optimizer, Cost Explorer
Automate evidence collection so your review is never starved of data. Use AWS Config aggregators across the organization to roll up compliance state weekly. Enable Security Hub with delegated administration and centralize findings into a security account. Set up Scheduled Queries over the Cost and Usage Report in Athena or use Cost Explorer APIs to produce monthly cost posture reports – Savings Plans coverage, RI utilization, and top spend deltas.
Turn on Compute Optimizer across accounts and schedule a monthly export of rightsizing recommendations. Feed those into your backlog with expected savings estimates. Add Cost Anomaly Detection to alert on unexpected spikes by service or account. If you suddenly see NAT gateway charges doubling, the alert should create an investigation task automatically with recent changes attached.
For reliability and operations, wire CloudWatch metrics and synthetic canaries to SLO dashboards and alert when the error budget burn rate is too high. Route high-severity Security Hub findings and Config rule violations to your ticketing system with auto-assigned owners based on tags. A simple rule: if a person needs to act, a ticket should exist without manual copy-paste.
Report metrics and trend Well-Architected best practices
Publish a lightweight scorecard that trends the things you want to improve. At minimum, track: number of High-Risk Issues open and closed over time, time to remediate HRIs, percentage of workloads with current Well-Architected reviews, Security Hub critical findings by age bucket, SLO attainment, and unit cost metrics relevant to the business. Show a small before-and-after for each review cycle to keep momentum visible.
Make the scorecard consumable for different audiences. Executives care about risk reduction and cost efficiency trends. Engineers care about toil reduction, performance improvements, and clear priorities. A single dashboard can serve both if the metrics map to decisions. If one KPI starts moving the wrong way – for example, SLO attainment dropping after a change intended to cut costs – call it out and decide whether to roll back, adjust, or accept the trade-off.
Close the loop with the hidden accelerator: turn the review into an automated, continuous loop. Pre-collect evidence from AWS Config, Security Hub, Trusted Advisor, and Compute Optimizer or Cost Explorer. Tie risks to SLOs and cost impact in your backlog. Capture decisions as ADRs, and track 30, 60, and 90-day remediation directly in your delivery board. To stay current with patterns you might adopt next, keep an eye on AWS cloud architecture trends so your next iteration is informed by where the platform is going.
Conclusion
An effective AWS architecture review is a disciplined loop, not a one-off. Define tight workload boundaries and explicit triggers. Lead with operational excellence, security, and reliability, then extend to performance, cost, and sustainability. Prepare well – the right stakeholders, pre-collected signals, and the Well-Architected Tool with relevant lenses – so conclusions rest on evidence, not opinions.
Implement guardrails, re-validate with AWS services, automate checks, and report trends to sustain progress. If you want help running an AWS architecture review with clarity and momentum, contact us to schedule a focused session that translates findings into action and builds long-term operational habits.
