It’s interesting how OP talks about the process as something unique and groundbreaking. Honestly that’s how 90% of the tech companies handle architecture and design - a bunch of people whiteboarding solutions and drawing box diagrams and writing down notes. In 12 years I haven’t worked at any company that uses the tools he mentions. Experience usually drives the output and the result of the mentioned “process”. An experienced engineer in the room is more likely to bring up non-functional characteristics and related concerns such as performance, security, high availability etc. You can choose not to have a formalized architecture process or review and you can also choose to just draw boxes which link to each other without completely making sense - like a class with an arrow pointing to a machine and another arrow pointing to a process (which is fine until a couple of years later, someone looks at a dangling process in the diagram and wonders which machine/container it’s running on). Obviously Ymmv because it’s not some “predictable” process and purely relies on drawing out the collective experience and intelligence of the room