Add framework 17: orchestration topology

CLAUDE.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ User-facing usage guide: [`USING_CLAUDE_CODE.md`](USING_CLAUDE_CODE.md).
 
 ## What this repo is
 
-Hands-on simulations of the Forward Deployed Engineer role. Two fictional 4-week customer engagements (Calder insurance + Helix hedge fund) with working Python agent prototypes, weighted eval suites, reference solutions per phase, and stakeholder role-play prompts. Plus 4 simulation types (full engagement, 5h take-home + Review, 60-min recommendation, client simulation), 16 portable frameworks, a case-aware HTML whiteboard, and engagement-cycle artifacts (retro, portfolio, skip-ahead).
+Hands-on simulations of the Forward Deployed Engineer role. Two fictional 4-week customer engagements (Calder insurance + Helix hedge fund) with working Python agent prototypes, weighted eval suites, reference solutions per phase, and stakeholder role-play prompts. Plus 4 simulation types (full engagement, 5h take-home + Review, 60-min recommendation, client simulation), 17 portable frameworks, a case-aware HTML whiteboard, and engagement-cycle artifacts (retro, portfolio, skip-ahead).
 
 Doubles as interview prep for FDE-style roles at frontier AI labs.
 
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ The simulations are designed for the user to do the work. Reference solutions ex
 │   ├── 3-recommendation-60min/        # 1-hour live conversation
 │   └── 4-client-simulation/           # Hostile-customer role-play
 │
-├── frameworks/                        # 16 portable frameworks
+├── frameworks/                        # 17 portable frameworks
 │   ├── 4-source-convergence.md
 │   ├── 3-lens-scaffold.md
 │   ├── outcome-risk-matrix.md
@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ The simulations are designed for the user to do the work. Reference solutions ex
 │   ├── agent-exploitation-taxonomy.md # operate-time security: 8 attack classes + gate per class
 │   ├── production-debugging.md        # CS-agent components + latency root-cause + log-triage drill
 │   ├── system-design-round.md         # design-round method + RAG/tools/MCP/trajectory-eval/cost depth + drills
+│   ├── orchestration-topology.md      # boundary test, 6 patterns, MCP vs A2A, delegation contracts, governance
 │   └── trust-surface-design.md        # adoption layer: attribution, transparency, publish gate, permissions, stakes routing, autonomy ladder
 │
 └── tools/
@@ -175,6 +176,7 @@ Personas' kill-criteria, what they would and wouldn't say, and tone are in `STAK
 - **System design round** — the design-round method (requirements first → walking-skeleton MVP → name tradeoffs and pick → identity/observability/rollback/eval-as-release) plus the AI-architecture depth it probes: RAG failure modes, agent tool design + MCP, trajectory evaluation, cost levers. Spine it on DASME or C.A.S.E. Includes a 6-prompt drill set.
 
 - **Trust surface design** — the adoption layer, for when the eval passes but nobody delegates to the agent. Five decisions: attribution (agent vs. human, reversible per-step), transparency depth (process for the accountable user, outcome for the served user), publish gate (producing is free; reaching another human needs approval), permission inheritance (never invent a second access model), stakes routing ("can AI do it?" vs "should AI do it?"). Approvals render next to the object in the customer's system of record; chat is a session log, not the front door. Plus the onboarding-style autonomy ladder (launch deliberately over-gated, widen on override rate) and the refinement loop the field memo has to name an owner for.
+- **Orchestration topology** — the composition layer. When to add a reasoning boundary vs. a tool (boundary test: need >=2 of different failure mode / permissions / eval criteria / model tier / lifecycle / domain). Six patterns: router, supervisor, sequential, fan-out, generator-verifier, hierarchical. MCP = "I need a capability"; A2A = "I need another agent to own this task." Delegation contract: Objective -> Context -> Permissions -> Expected Output -> Completion Criteria -> Failure Behavior. Governance = model proposes, policy layer disposes. Multi-agent moves complexity into orchestration rather than removing it — sometimes one agent with good tools is right.
 
 When suggesting or critiquing, name the framework. Don't re-derive.
 

COVERAGE_MAP.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 ## Why this exists
 
-The repo has 4 simulation formats and 16 frameworks. Candidates ask: "I have an OpenAI Deployed PM final round in 2 weeks — which simulation should I actually run?" This map answers that.
+The repo has 4 simulation formats and 17 frameworks. Candidates ask: "I have an OpenAI Deployed PM final round in 2 weeks — which simulation should I actually run?" This map answers that.
 
 Two axes:
 1. **Which simulation format covers which interview signal** (the matrix below)
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ Legend: `█` = primary coverage (deliverable proves it), `▒` = secondary cove
 | Wedge selection on Outcome Risk Matrix | █ | █ | █ | |
 | 3-lens scaffold application | █ | █ | █ | |
 | Agent workforce decomposition (5-8 agents with shapes) | █ | █ | █ | |
+| Orchestration topology + delegation contracts (why N agents, which pattern) | █ | █ | █ | |
 | Model-vs-application-layer tagging | █ | █ | █ | |
 | Hybrid deterministic + LLM discipline | █ | █ | | |
 | Working prototype that runs end-to-end | █ | █ | | |

README.md

@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ Each agent run produces an examiner-readable audit trace.
 
 ### Frameworks (used across all simulations)
 
-16 portable frameworks that show up in every FDE engagement:
+17 portable frameworks that show up in every FDE engagement:
 
 1. [4-source convergence](frameworks/4-source-convergence.md) — Buyer / Brief / Industry / Operator triangulation for discovery
 2. [3-lens scaffold](frameworks/3-lens-scaffold.md) — Customer / Product / Technical for any agent design; AI-capability-relationship segmentation
@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ Each agent run produces an examiner-readable audit trace.
 14. [Production debugging](frameworks/production-debugging.md) — customer-support agent reference architecture + a latency root-cause decomposition tree + a worked log-triage drill
 15. [System design round](frameworks/system-design-round.md) — the design-round method + AI-architecture depth (RAG failure modes, agent tool design + MCP, trajectory eval, cost levers) + a 6-prompt drill set
 16. [Trust surface design](frameworks/trust-surface-design.md) — the adoption layer: attribution, transparency depth, publish gate (and where the approval renders), permission inheritance, stakes routing, an onboarding-style autonomy ladder, and the post-handoff refinement loop
+17. [Orchestration topology](frameworks/orchestration-topology.md) — when a reasoning boundary beats a tool, the 6 orchestration patterns, MCP vs. A2A, delegation contracts, and the governance/observability layers
 
 ### Tools
 
@@ -163,7 +164,7 @@ fde-simulation/
 │   ├── 3-recommendation-60min/        # 1 hour live conversation
 │   └── 4-client-simulation/           # Live customer-handling role-play
 │
-├── frameworks/                        # 16 portable FDE frameworks
+├── frameworks/                        # 17 portable FDE frameworks
 └── tools/                             # Interactive 3-lens whiteboard
 ```
 

USING_CLAUDE_CODE.md

@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Claude reads your work, compares to the week-2 deliverables, names what's missin
 
 After an engagement (or mid-engagement), ask Claude to grade which frameworks you actually deployed:
 
-> "Read my discovery memo and wedge proposal. Which of the 16 frameworks in `frameworks/` did I actually use? Which did I name? Which did I skip? Score each as 'deployed / named / skipped'."
+> "Read my discovery memo and wedge proposal. Which of the 17 frameworks in `frameworks/` did I actually use? Which did I name? Which did I skip? Score each as 'deployed / named / skipped'."
 
 Useful before writing the `PORTFOLIO_TEMPLATE.md` `frameworks-applied.md` doc — Claude tells you what you actually did vs what you said you did.
 

frameworks/README.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Frameworks
 
-> Sixteen portable frameworks that show up in every FDE engagement. Internalize these and they generalize to any case.
+> Seventeen portable frameworks that show up in every FDE engagement. Internalize these and they generalize to any case.
 
 | Framework | One-line definition | Deploy in... |
 |---|---|---|
@@ -20,12 +20,13 @@
 | [Production debugging](production-debugging.md) | Customer-support agent reference architecture + latency root-cause decomposition tree + worked log-triage drill | Live-debugging case + operate-time |
 | [System design round](system-design-round.md) | Design-round method + AI-architecture depth (RAG failure modes, tool design + MCP, trajectory eval, cost levers) + 6-prompt drill set | System-design round |
 | [Trust surface design](trust-surface-design.md) | The 5 decisions that make a working agent get *used*: attribution, transparency depth, publish gate (and where it renders), permission inheritance, stakes routing — plus the onboarding-style autonomy ladder and the post-launch refinement loop | Solution Strategy + Risk & Validation + handoff |
+| [Orchestration topology](orchestration-topology.md) | When to add a reasoning boundary vs. a tool (6-signal boundary test), the 6 orchestration patterns, MCP vs. A2A, the 6-field delegation contract, and the governance/observability layers | Solution Strategy + System-design round |
 
 ## How to deploy them
 
 In a 60-min interview, you deploy them in order:
 - Discovery: framework 1
-- Solution Strategy: frameworks 2, 3, 4, 5 (in that order)
+- Solution Strategy: frameworks 2, 3, 4, 5, then 17 (topology) if the system needs more than one agent
 - Risk & Validation: frameworks 6 and 16
 
 In a 5-hour take-home, you deploy them across hours 1-2 (discovery + architecture) and reference them in your deck.

frameworks/agent-shapes-catalog.md

@@ -109,4 +109,5 @@ Senior move: name the shape before the agent.
 
 ## See also
 
+- [`orchestration-topology.md`](orchestration-topology.md) — the shapes say what each agent *is*; this says how they compose (patterns), when a shape should be a tool instead, and what a delegated task must specify
 - [`production-debugging.md`](production-debugging.md) — a worked customer-support agent reference architecture: how these shapes compose into an 11-component request path you can debug against.