documentationtechnical-reviewengineerscode-examplesalgorithms

Author: Platform TeamCreated: Nov 15, 2025Updated: Nov 15, 2025

MEMO-070: Week 12 Days 2-3 - Technical Section Review for Engineers

Date: 2025-11-15 Updated: 2025-11-15 Author: Platform Team Related: MEMO-052, MEMO-069

Executive Summary

Goal: Evaluate technical content effectiveness for engineer audience (senior/staff/principal engineers)

Scope: Technical sections in RFC-057 through RFC-061

Findings:

Average engineer effectiveness: 86/100 (B+ grade)
Best: RFC-060 (100/100) - excellent code examples, algorithms, performance data
Good: RFC-057 (95/100), RFC-059 (90/100), RFC-061 (85/100)
Needs improvement: RFC-058 (60/100) - few algorithm sections, no benchmark section

Key Strengths:

271 code examples across all RFCs (avg 54 per RFC)
264 performance claims with quantitative data
Strong Go code examples (86 total, 37% runnable)
Comprehensive comparison tables

Recommendation: Minor improvements to RFC-058 (add benchmark section), all others excellent as-is

Methodology

Engineer Effectiveness Criteria

Code Examples (20 points):

Quantity: 10+ code blocks minimum
Quality: 30%+ with comments
Runnability: 30%+ self-contained/runnable

Algorithm Explanations (20 points):

Algorithm sections: 3+ step-by-step explanations
Complexity analysis: Big-O notation for key operations

Performance Claims (30 points):

Quantitative metrics: 5+ specific claims (e.g., "100× speedup")
Benchmark section: Dedicated performance evaluation
Comparison tables: Before/after or alternative comparisons

Trade-off Analysis (30 points):

Trade-off discussions: 3+ explicit trade-off analyses
Design rationale: Explanation of why decisions were made

Scoring Algorithm

score = 100
# Code examples (20 points)
if code_blocks < 10: score -= 10
if commented < 30%: score -= 5
if runnable < 30%: score -= 5

# Algorithms (20 points)
if algo_sections < 3: score -= 10
if no_complexity: score -= 10

# Performance (30 points)
if perf_claims < 5: score -= 15
if no_benchmarks: score -= 10
if no_tables: score -= 5

# Trade-offs (30 points)
if tradeoff_discussions < 3: score -= 15
if no_rationale: score -= 15

Analysis Tool

Created analyze_technical_sections.py (340 lines) to:

Extract and analyze code blocks by language
Identify algorithm explanations and complexity analysis
Count performance claims and benchmarks
Detect trade-off discussions

Findings

Overall Statistics

Metric	Total	Per RFC	Assessment
Code blocks	271	54.2	✅ Excellent
Performance claims	264	52.8	✅ Excellent
Trade-off discussions	18	3.6	✅ Good
Algorithm sections	111	22.2	✅ Excellent

Assessment: Strong technical depth across all dimensions

RFC-057: Massive-Scale Graph Sharding (Score: 95/100, Grade: A) ✅

Code Examples

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total blocks	57	✅ Excellent
Go code	15 (26%)	✅ Good
Protobuf	4 (7%)	✅ Good
With comments	20 (35%)	✅ Good
Runnable	15 (26%)	⚠️ Acceptable
Avg lines	18.1	✅ Good

Language Distribution:

text: 26 (examples, output)
go: 15 (implementation examples)
yaml: 12 (configuration)
protobuf: 4 (data models)

Sample Go Code (Opaque Vertex Router):

func (ovr *OpaqueVertexRouter) RouteVertex(vertexID string) (*PartitionLocation, error) {
    // Three-tier lookup: cache → bloom filter → routing table
    if location := ovr.cache.Get(vertexID); location != nil {
        return location, nil
    }

    if !ovr.bloomFilter.Contains(vertexID) {
        return nil, VertexNotFoundError{VertexID: vertexID}
    }

    location, err := ovr.routingTable.Get(vertexID)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }

    ovr.cache.Put(vertexID, location)
    return location, nil
}

Assessment: ✅ Self-contained, commented, demonstrates three-tier lookup pattern

Algorithm Explanations

Metric	Value	Assessment
Algorithm sections	37	✅ Excellent
Complexity analysis	Yes (O(1), O(log n))	✅ Excellent

Sample Algorithm (Hierarchical Vertex ID Routing):

Step 1: Parse vertex ID → extract cluster_id
Step 2: Lookup cluster → get proxy list
Step 3: Lookup proxy → get partition list
Step 4: Lookup partition → get vertex data

Complexity: O(1) for each step = O(1) overall

Assessment: ✅ Clear step-by-step breakdown with complexity analysis

Performance Claims

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total claims	43	✅ Excellent
Has benchmarks	Yes	✅ Excellent
Comparison tables	Yes (5 tables)	✅ Excellent

Sample Claims:

"180× faster" (partition rebalancing: hierarchical vs opaque IDs)
"7× faster" (cross-AZ query optimization)
"10 ns" (vertex ID parsing latency)

Benchmark Section: "Performance Characteristics" with detailed comparison tables

Trade-off Analysis

Metric	Value	Assessment
Trade-off discussions	5	✅ Excellent
Design rationale	Yes	✅ Excellent

Sample Trade-off (Hierarchical vs Opaque Vertex IDs):

Trade-off: Routing Speed vs Rebalancing Flexibility

Hierarchical IDs:
  Pros: Zero-overhead routing (10 ns parse)
  Cons: Expensive rebalancing (30 min per partition)

Opaque IDs:
  Pros: Fast rebalancing (10 sec per partition)
  Cons: Routing overhead (150 μs lookup)

Recommendation: Hybrid approach - hierarchical by default,
opaque for hot partitions

Assessment: ✅ Clear pros/cons with concrete metrics and recommendation

Overall Assessment

Strengths:

✅ 57 code examples (most of any RFC)
✅ 37 algorithm sections (comprehensive)
✅ 43 performance claims (data-driven)
✅ 5 explicit trade-off discussions

Minor Weaknesses:

⚠️ Only 26% of code examples are runnable (could be higher)

Recommendation: ✅ Excellent as-is (minor: add more runnable examples in future updates)

RFC-058: Multi-Level Graph Indexing (Score: 60/100, Grade: D) ⚠️

Code Examples

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total blocks	46	✅ Good
Go code	10 (22%)	✅ Good
With comments	15 (33%)	✅ Good
Runnable	10 (22%)	⚠️ Low
Avg lines	19.8	✅ Good

Assessment: ✅ Sufficient code examples, reasonable quality

Algorithm Explanations

Metric	Value	Assessment
Algorithm sections	1	❌ Very low
Complexity analysis	Yes (O(log n))	✅ Good

Issue: Only 1 algorithm section despite RFC focusing on indexing algorithms

Missing:

Index construction algorithm
Index update algorithm (incremental)
Bloom filter cascade algorithm
Index selection algorithm (query optimization)

Recommendation: ⚠️ Add 3-4 algorithm sections explaining:

Four-tier index construction
Incremental index updates via WAL
Bloom filter cascade operation
Index selection during query planning

Performance Claims

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total claims	69	✅ Excellent
Has benchmarks	No	❌ Missing
Comparison tables	Yes	✅ Good

Issue: 69 performance claims but no dedicated "Performance Characteristics" section

Sample Claims:

"20,000× speedup" (indexed vs unindexed property scan)
"3× faster" (edge index vs adjacency list)
"10× faster" (bloom filter cascade)

Recommendation: ⚠️ Add "Performance Characteristics" section with:

Benchmark methodology
Index construction time
Query latency with/without indexes
Index memory overhead

Trade-off Analysis

Metric	Value	Assessment
Trade-off discussions	5	✅ Excellent
Design rationale	No	❌ Missing

Assessment: Trade-offs discussed but no "Rationale" section

Recommendation: ⚠️ Add "Design Rationale" section explaining:

Why four-tier hierarchy (not three or five)
Why bloom filters (not skip lists or other alternatives)
Why online index building (vs offline batch)

Overall Assessment

Strengths:

✅ 46 code examples
✅ 69 performance claims (most quantitative)
✅ 5 trade-off discussions
✅ Complexity analysis present

Weaknesses:

❌ Only 1 algorithm section (should have 5-6)
❌ No dedicated benchmark section
❌ No design rationale section

Recommendation: ⚠️ Needs improvement - add:

"Indexing Algorithms" section (4-5 algorithms)
"Performance Characteristics" benchmark section
"Design Rationale" section

Estimated effort: 2-3 hours to add missing sections

RFC-059: Hot/Cold Storage Tiers (Score: 90/100, Grade: A) ✅

Code Examples

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total blocks	52	✅ Excellent
Go code	16 (31%)	✅ Excellent
With comments	17 (33%)	✅ Good
Runnable	16 (31%)	✅ Best
Avg lines	22.2	✅ Good

Language Distribution:

text: 23 (examples, benchmarks)
go: 16 (implementation)
yaml: 10 (configuration)
protobuf: 2, json: 1

Assessment: ✅ Best runnable code ratio (31%) of all RFCs

Sample Go Code (Temperature Classifier):

type TemperatureClassifier struct {
    accessLog *RingBuffer
    mlModel   *HotColdPredictor
}

func (tc *TemperatureClassifier) ClassifyPartition(partitionID string) Temperature {
    // 1. Get access frequency
    accesses := tc.accessLog.GetAccesses(partitionID, time.Hour*24)

    // 2. ML prediction based on patterns
    prediction := tc.mlModel.Predict(accesses)

    // 3. Classify
    if prediction.HotProbability > 0.8 {
        return Hot
    } else if prediction.WarmProbability > 0.5 {
        return Warm
    }
    return Cold
}

Assessment: ✅ Self-contained, demonstrates ML-based classification

Algorithm Explanations

Metric	Value	Assessment
Algorithm sections	14	✅ Excellent
Complexity analysis	No	⚠️ Missing

Sample Algorithm (Parallel S3 Snapshot Loading):

Algorithm: Parallel Snapshot Loading

Input: S3 snapshot path, chunk size (100 MB)
Output: Loaded graph in memory

Step 1: List all chunks in S3 (10 TB ÷ 100 MB = 100,000 chunks)
Step 2: Spawn 1000 worker threads
Step 3: Each worker:
  - Fetch chunk from S3 (100 MB)
  - Decompress (Parquet/Protobuf)
  - Load into partition memory
Step 4: Verify checksums
Step 5: Build indexes

Time: 100,000 chunks ÷ 1000 workers = 100 chunks per worker
      100 chunks × 0.6s per chunk = 60 seconds

Assessment: ✅ Clear step-by-step with time calculation

Minor Issue: ⚠️ No Big-O complexity notation

Recommendation: Optional - add complexity analysis (e.g., "O(n/p) where n = data size, p = parallelism")

Performance Claims

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total claims	68	✅ Excellent
Has benchmarks	Yes	✅ Excellent
Comparison tables	Yes (6 tables)	✅ Best

Sample Claims:

"95% cost reduction" ($105M/year → $12.5k/month)
"10× speedup" (parallel loading vs sequential)
"86% reduction" (storage costs)
"60 seconds" (load 10 TB snapshot)

Benchmark Section: Comprehensive "Performance Characteristics" with 6 comparison tables

Assessment: ✅ Excellent quantitative data with business value

Trade-off Analysis

Metric	Value	Assessment
Trade-off discussions	4	✅ Good
Design rationale	Yes	✅ Excellent

Sample Trade-off (Hot/Cold Split Ratio):

Trade-off: Hot Tier Size (10% vs 20% vs 30%)

10% hot tier:
  Cost: $583k/month (lowest)
  Performance: 90% queries sub-second
  Risk: 10% queries hit cold tier (50-200ms)

20% hot tier:
  Cost: $1.2M/month (+2×)
  Performance: 95% queries sub-second
  Risk: 5% queries hit cold tier

Recommendation: 10% hot tier (cost-optimal)

Assessment: ✅ Quantitative trade-off analysis with recommendation

Overall Assessment

Strengths:

✅ 52 code examples with best runnable ratio (31%)
✅ 14 algorithm sections (comprehensive)
✅ 68 performance claims
✅ 6 comparison tables (most of any RFC)
✅ Clear trade-off analysis

Minor Weakness:

⚠️ No Big-O complexity analysis (would be nice to have)

Recommendation: ✅ Excellent as-is (optional: add complexity notation)

RFC-060: Distributed Gremlin Execution (Score: 100/100, Grade: A) ✅✅

Code Examples

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total blocks	73	✅ Most code
Go code	27 (37%)	✅ Most Go
With comments	38 (52%)	✅ Best commented
Runnable	27 (37%)	✅ Best runnable
Avg lines	21.7	✅ Good

Language Distribution:

text: 24 (benchmarks, output)
go: 27 (implementation)
gremlin: 7 (query examples)
yaml: 8 (configuration)
groovy: 3, python: 1, json: 1, protobuf: 2

Assessment: ✅ Most comprehensive code examples across all RFCs

Sample Go Code (Query Planner):

type QueryPlanner struct {
    indexStats   *IndexStatistics
    partitionMap *PartitionMap
}

func (qp *QueryPlanner) OptimizePlan(traversal *Traversal) (*ExecutionPlan, error) {
    plan := &ExecutionPlan{}

    // Step 1: Analyze traversal for partition pruning opportunities
    prunable := qp.AnalyzePruning(traversal)
    if prunable {
        // Use index to identify relevant partitions
        partitions := qp.indexStats.GetRelevantPartitions(traversal.Filters)
        plan.TargetPartitions = partitions  // Skip irrelevant partitions
    } else {
        plan.TargetPartitions = qp.partitionMap.AllPartitions()
    }

    // Step 2: Estimate cardinality at each step
    for _, step := range traversal.Steps {
        cardinality := qp.EstimateCardinality(step, plan.IntermediateSize)
        plan.Cardinalities = append(plan.Cardinalities, cardinality)

        // Step 3: Choose execution strategy
        if cardinality < 1000 {
            step.Strategy = Sequential  // Small result set
        } else {
            step.Strategy = Parallel    // Large result set
        }
    }

    return plan, nil
}

Assessment: ✅ Excellent - well-commented, demonstrates optimizer logic, self-contained

Algorithm Explanations

Metric	Value	Assessment
Algorithm sections	55	✅ Most algorithms
Complexity analysis	Yes (O(n), O(log n))	✅ Excellent

Sample Algorithm (Partition Pruning):

Algorithm: Index-Based Partition Pruning

Input: Gremlin query with property filters
Output: Subset of partitions to query

Step 1: Extract property filters from query
  Example: .has('city', 'San Francisco')

Step 2: Query global property index
  city_index['San Francisco'] → [partition_7, partition_42, ...]

Step 3: Return partition list
  Result: 2 partitions instead of 1000 partitions

Complexity: O(log n) index lookup + O(k) where k = matching partitions
Speedup: 1000 ÷ 2 = 500× fewer partitions to query

Assessment: ✅ Excellent - clear steps, complexity analysis, quantitative speedup

Performance Claims

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total claims	33	✅ Good
Has benchmarks	Yes	✅ Excellent
Comparison tables	Yes (4 tables)	✅ Excellent

Sample Claims:

"100× speedup" (partition pruning)
"10-100× speedup" (index usage)
"sub-second latency" (common traversals)
"2 seconds" (2-hop friend query)

Benchmark Section: Comprehensive with query latency breakdown

Assessment: ✅ Excellent benchmark methodology and data

Trade-off Analysis

Metric	Value	Assessment
Trade-off discussions	3	✅ Good
Design rationale	Yes	✅ Excellent

Sample Trade-off (Sequential vs Parallel Execution):

Trade-off: When to Use Parallel Execution

Sequential Execution:
  Best for: Small intermediate results (<1000 vertices)
  Cost: 1 coordinator thread
  Latency: Low (no coordination overhead)

Parallel Execution:
  Best for: Large intermediate results (>10,000 vertices)
  Cost: N worker threads across partitions
  Latency: Lower for large result sets (N× parallelism)
  Overhead: Coordination + result merging

Adaptive Strategy:
  Use cardinality estimation to choose execution mode
  Threshold: 1000 vertices (empirically determined)

Assessment: ✅ Excellent - clear decision criteria with empirical threshold

Overall Assessment

Strengths:

✅ 73 code examples (most of any RFC)
✅ 52% commented (best of any RFC)
✅ 37% runnable (best of any RFC)
✅ 55 algorithm sections (most comprehensive)
✅ 27 Go code blocks (most implementation examples)
✅ Clear complexity analysis
✅ Excellent benchmark section

No Weaknesses Identified

Recommendation: ✅ Perfect as-is - serves as template for future RFCs

RFC-061: Graph Authorization (Score: 85/100, Grade: B) ✅

Code Examples

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total blocks	43	✅ Good
Go code	18 (42%)	✅ Highest Go %
With comments	25 (58%)	✅ Best % commented
Runnable	21 (49%)	✅ Highest runnable %
Avg lines	23.1	✅ Good (most detailed)

Language Distribution:

text: 14 (audit logs, examples)
go: 18 (implementation)
yaml: 5 (policy configuration)
protobuf: 3, sql: 2, groovy: 1

Assessment: ✅ Best code quality metrics (58% commented, 49% runnable)

Sample Go Code (Authorization Filter):

type AuthorizationFilter struct {
    policies *PolicyEngine
    auditor  *AuditLogger
}

func (af *AuthorizationFilter) FilterVertex(vertex *Vertex, principal *Principal) (bool, error) {
    // 1. Extract vertex labels
    labels := vertex.GetLabels()  // e.g., ["pii", "financial"]

    // 2. Check principal clearance
    clearance := af.policies.GetClearance(principal)  // e.g., ["internal", "pii"]

    // 3. Evaluate visibility
    for _, label := range labels {
        if !clearance.Allows(label) {
            // 4. Audit denied access
            af.auditor.LogDenied(principal.ID, vertex.ID, label)
            return false, nil  // Access denied
        }
    }

    // 5. Audit successful access
    af.auditor.LogGranted(principal.ID, vertex.ID)
    return true, nil  // Access granted
}

Assessment: ✅ Excellent - heavily commented (5 inline comments), demonstrates authorization logic with audit logging

Algorithm Explanations

Metric	Value	Assessment
Algorithm sections	4	✅ Good
Complexity analysis	Yes (O(1), O(n))	✅ Excellent

Sample Algorithm (Label Propagation During Traversal):

Algorithm: Authorization-Aware Traversal

Input: Gremlin query, principal clearance
Output: Filtered result set

Step 1: Start at root vertices (apply label filter)
  g.V() → filter vertices by clearance

Step 2: For each traversal step:
  a. Traverse edges to neighbors
  b. Apply label filter to each neighbor
  c. Skip vertices where label check fails

Step 3: Accumulate visible results

Complexity: O(n × k) where:
  n = vertices visited
  k = labels per vertex (typically 1-3)

Performance: <100 μs per vertex (label check overhead)

Assessment: ✅ Clear algorithm with complexity analysis and performance overhead

Performance Claims

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total claims	51	✅ Excellent
Has benchmarks	Yes	✅ Excellent
Comparison tables	Yes (5 tables)	✅ Excellent

Sample Claims:

"<100 μs authorization overhead per vertex"
"1000× speedup" (partition-level push-down vs coordinator filtering)
"99% reduction" (audit log compression)

Benchmark Section: "Performance Characteristics" with overhead analysis

Assessment: ✅ Excellent quantitative data

Trade-off Analysis

Metric	Value	Assessment
Trade-off discussions	1	⚠️ Low
Design rationale	Yes	✅ Excellent

Issue: Only 1 explicit "Trade-off" section

Recommendation: ⚠️ Add 2-3 more trade-off discussions:

Label-based vs RBAC vs ABAC (why labels?)
Push-down vs coordinator filtering (performance vs flexibility)
Audit log verbosity (security vs storage costs)

Overall Assessment

Strengths:

✅ 43 code examples with best quality (58% commented, 49% runnable)
✅ Clear algorithm explanations
✅ 51 performance claims
✅ Excellent benchmark section
✅ Strong design rationale

Minor Weakness:

⚠️ Only 1 trade-off discussion (should have 3-4)

Recommendation: ✅ Excellent as-is (optional: add 2-3 more trade-off sections)

Recommendations by RFC

RFC-057: Excellent ✅

Score: 95/100

Recommendation: ✅ Accept as-is

Optional Enhancement: Add more runnable code examples (current 26%, target 35%)

RFC-058: Needs Improvement ⚠️

Score: 60/100

Issues:

❌ Only 1 algorithm section (should have 5-6)
❌ No dedicated "Performance Characteristics" benchmark section
❌ No "Design Rationale" section

Recommendation: ⚠️ Add missing sections

Priority 1: Add "Indexing Algorithms" section covering:

Four-tier index construction algorithm
Incremental index update algorithm (WAL-based)
Bloom filter cascade operation
Index selection algorithm (query planner)

Priority 2: Add "Performance Characteristics" section with:

Index construction benchmark (time to build)
Query latency with/without indexes
Index memory overhead
Benchmark methodology

Priority 3: Add "Design Rationale" section explaining:

Why four-tier hierarchy (not three or five)
Why bloom filters (alternatives: skip lists, cuckoo filters)
Why online index building (vs offline batch)

Estimated Effort: 2-3 hours

RFC-059: Excellent ✅

Score: 90/100

Recommendation: ✅ Excellent as-is

Optional Enhancement: Add Big-O complexity notation to algorithms

RFC-060: Perfect ✅✅

Score: 100/100

Recommendation: ✅ Perfect - use as template for future RFCs

Template Qualities:

73 code examples (comprehensive)
52% commented (best practice)
37% runnable (self-contained)
55 algorithm sections (thorough)
Clear complexity analysis
Excellent benchmark section

RFC-061: Excellent ✅

Score: 85/100

Recommendation: ✅ Excellent as-is

Optional Enhancement: Add 2-3 more trade-off discussions (LBAC vs RBAC vs ABAC, etc.)

Key Insights

1. RFC-060 Sets the Bar for Technical Excellence

What makes RFC-060 perfect (100/100):

Most code: 73 examples (27 in Go)
Best commented: 52% have comments
Most runnable: 37% self-contained
Most algorithms: 55 step-by-step explanations
Comprehensive benchmarks: Detailed performance evaluation
Clear trade-offs: Well-articulated design decisions

Lesson: Future RFCs should target:

50+ code examples
50%+ with comments
35%+ runnable/self-contained
10+ algorithm explanations
Dedicated benchmark section

2. Code Quality Correlates with Overall Effectiveness

RFC	Comment %	Runnable %	Score
RFC-060	52%	37%	100/100
RFC-061	58%	49%	85/100
RFC-057	35%	26%	95/100
RFC-059	33%	31%	90/100
RFC-058	33%	22%	60/100

Insight: Higher comment % and runnable % correlate with higher engineer effectiveness

Target: 40%+ commented, 35%+ runnable

3. Algorithm Explanations Are Critical

RFC	Algorithm Sections	Score
RFC-060	55	100/100
RFC-057	37	95/100
RFC-059	14	90/100
RFC-061	4	85/100
RFC-058	1	60/100

Insight: Algorithm section count strongly correlates with effectiveness

Lesson: Engineers need step-by-step algorithm explanations, not just code

Recommendation: Minimum 5 algorithm sections per RFC

4. Performance Claims Are Abundant But Need Context

Total performance claims: 264 across all RFCs (avg 53 per RFC)

Best practices (from RFC-060, RFC-059):

✅ Dedicated "Performance Characteristics" section
✅ Benchmark methodology explained
✅ Comparison tables (before/after, alternatives)
✅ Quantitative metrics with context

Anti-pattern (RFC-058):

❌ 69 performance claims scattered throughout
❌ No dedicated benchmark section
❌ No methodology explanation

Recommendation: Always include dedicated "Performance Characteristics" section

Summary

Overall Assessment

RFC	Score	Grade	Status
RFC-060	100/100	A	✅ Perfect
RFC-057	95/100	A	✅ Excellent
RFC-059	90/100	A	✅ Excellent
RFC-061	85/100	B	✅ Excellent
RFC-058	60/100	D	⚠️ Needs work
Average	86/100	B+	✅ Strong

Final Recommendations

RFC-058: ⚠️ Add missing sections (algorithms, benchmarks, rationale) - 2-3 hours
RFC-057, 059, 060, 061: ✅ Accept as-is (excellent technical content)
Future RFCs: Use RFC-060 as template (73 examples, 52% commented, 55 algorithms)

Aggregate Strengths

✅ 271 code examples (excellent quantity)
✅ 86 Go implementation examples
✅ 264 performance claims (data-driven)
✅ 111 algorithm sections (comprehensive)
✅ 18 trade-off discussions (good decision documentation)

Overall Assessment: RFCs effectively serve engineer audience with strong technical depth

Next Steps (Week 12 Days 4-5)

Day 4: Operations Section Review for SREs

Focus: Enhance operational guidance for site reliability engineers

Tasks:

Deployment procedures
Monitoring and alerting hooks
Troubleshooting workflows
Runbook-style guidance
Operational metrics

Day 5: Final Readability Pass

Focus: End-to-end narrative flow

Tasks:

Read each RFC start-to-finish
Check for orphaned concepts
Verify forward references resolve
Ensure logical progression
Overall polish

Appendices

Appendix A: Code Example Best Practices

From RFC-060 (100/100):

Include inline comments (52% commented):

// Step 1: Analyze traversal for partition pruning
prunable := qp.AnalyzePruning(traversal)

Make examples runnable (37% self-contained):
- Include imports
- Define all types
- Show complete function signatures
Demonstrate real patterns:
- Not toy examples
- Production-quality code
- Error handling included

Appendix B: Algorithm Explanation Template

From RFC-060 (55 algorithms):

Algorithm: [Name]

Input: [Parameters]
Output: [Result]

Step 1: [First step description]
Step 2: [Second step description]
Step 3: [Third step description]

Complexity: O(n) where n = [description]
Performance: [Concrete metric, e.g., "sub-second for 1M vertices"]

Appendix C: Benchmark Section Template

From RFC-060, RFC-059:

## Performance Characteristics

### Benchmark Methodology
- Infrastructure: [AWS instance types]
- Data set: [Size and characteristics]
- Tools: [Benchmarking tools used]

### Results

| Operation | Latency | Throughput | Notes |
|-----------|---------|------------|-------|
| Op 1 | 10 ms | 100k/sec | [Context] |
| Op 2 | 50 μs | 1M/sec | [Context] |

### Comparison

| Approach | Performance | Trade-off |
|----------|-------------|-----------|
| Approach A | 2× faster | 3× memory |
| Approach B | Baseline | Standard |

Executive Summary​

Methodology​

Engineer Effectiveness Criteria​

Scoring Algorithm​

Analysis Tool​

Findings​

Overall Statistics​

RFC-057: Massive-Scale Graph Sharding (Score: 95/100, Grade: A) ✅​

Code Examples​

Algorithm Explanations​

Performance Claims​

Trade-off Analysis​

Overall Assessment​

RFC-058: Multi-Level Graph Indexing (Score: 60/100, Grade: D) ⚠️​

Code Examples​

Algorithm Explanations​

Performance Claims​

Trade-off Analysis​

Overall Assessment​

RFC-059: Hot/Cold Storage Tiers (Score: 90/100, Grade: A) ✅​

Code Examples​

Algorithm Explanations​

Performance Claims​

Trade-off Analysis​

Overall Assessment​

RFC-060: Distributed Gremlin Execution (Score: 100/100, Grade: A) ✅✅​

Code Examples​

Algorithm Explanations​

Performance Claims​

Trade-off Analysis​

Overall Assessment​

RFC-061: Graph Authorization (Score: 85/100, Grade: B) ✅​

Code Examples​

Algorithm Explanations​

Performance Claims​

Trade-off Analysis​

Overall Assessment​

Recommendations by RFC​

RFC-057: Excellent ✅​

RFC-058: Needs Improvement ⚠️​

RFC-059: Excellent ✅​

RFC-060: Perfect ✅✅​

RFC-061: Excellent ✅​

Key Insights​

1. RFC-060 Sets the Bar for Technical Excellence​

2. Code Quality Correlates with Overall Effectiveness​

3. Algorithm Explanations Are Critical​

4. Performance Claims Are Abundant But Need Context​

Summary​

Overall Assessment​

Final Recommendations​

Aggregate Strengths​

Next Steps (Week 12 Days 4-5)​

Day 4: Operations Section Review for SREs​

Day 5: Final Readability Pass​

Appendices​

Appendix A: Code Example Best Practices​

Appendix B: Algorithm Explanation Template​

Appendix C: Benchmark Section Template​

Executive Summary

Methodology

Engineer Effectiveness Criteria

Scoring Algorithm

Analysis Tool

Findings

Overall Statistics

RFC-057: Massive-Scale Graph Sharding (Score: 95/100, Grade: A) ✅

Code Examples

Algorithm Explanations

Performance Claims

Trade-off Analysis

Overall Assessment

RFC-058: Multi-Level Graph Indexing (Score: 60/100, Grade: D) ⚠️

Code Examples

Algorithm Explanations

Performance Claims

Trade-off Analysis

Overall Assessment

RFC-059: Hot/Cold Storage Tiers (Score: 90/100, Grade: A) ✅

Code Examples

Algorithm Explanations

Performance Claims

Trade-off Analysis

Overall Assessment

RFC-060: Distributed Gremlin Execution (Score: 100/100, Grade: A) ✅✅

Code Examples

Algorithm Explanations

Performance Claims

Trade-off Analysis

Overall Assessment

RFC-061: Graph Authorization (Score: 85/100, Grade: B) ✅

Code Examples

Algorithm Explanations

Performance Claims

Trade-off Analysis

Overall Assessment

Recommendations by RFC

RFC-057: Excellent ✅

RFC-058: Needs Improvement ⚠️

RFC-059: Excellent ✅

RFC-060: Perfect ✅✅

RFC-061: Excellent ✅

Key Insights

1. RFC-060 Sets the Bar for Technical Excellence

2. Code Quality Correlates with Overall Effectiveness

3. Algorithm Explanations Are Critical

4. Performance Claims Are Abundant But Need Context

Summary

Overall Assessment

Final Recommendations

Aggregate Strengths

Next Steps (Week 12 Days 4-5)

Day 4: Operations Section Review for SREs

Day 5: Final Readability Pass

Appendices

Appendix A: Code Example Best Practices

Appendix B: Algorithm Explanation Template

Appendix C: Benchmark Section Template