Risks and Technical Debt
This section outlines potential architectural risks and the identified technical debt within Framework M.
11.1 Architectural Risks
| Risk | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Dependency Injection Overload | Complexity in debugging and increased cognitive load for new developers. | Strict container patterns and clear create_container orchestration. |
| Protocol Fragility | Breaking the core Protocols (interfaces) will ripple across all adapters. | Semantic versioning and strict TDD for the framework-m-core package. |
| Performance Overhead | Metadata resolution and DI may add latency to high-frequency requests. | Compiled Pydantic Core (v2) and registry caching for metadata lookups. |
11.2 Identified Technical Debt
Based on the ongoing refactoring from legacy patterns, all previously identified major architectural debt items (including Mutation Idempotency) have been successfully resolved.
11.3 Debt Management
Technical debt is tracked via the anti-patterns.md registry. Every new feature implementation must pass an 11-point checklist (paginated queries, timezone-awareness, secret redaction, etc.) to prevent the accumulation of fresh architectural debt.