A design is a set of bets. Writing down which bets you are making — and what would have to be true for them to be wrong — costs an afternoon and saves a rewrite.
This piece walks through how we think about it at Paycux, what we have changed our minds about, and where the sharp edges are.
The problem every RAG system hits
The problem every RAG system hits is where this gets concrete. Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
Idempotency is not a nice-to-have in any system with retries. Key on an identifier the caller supplies, store the outcome, and return the same answer to the same key rather than doing the work twice.
The high-cardinality anti-pattern
The high-cardinality anti-pattern is where this gets concrete. Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument. A p50 that looks fine while the p99 is unusable is a reporting failure, not a performance one.
Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument. A p50 that looks fine while the p99 is unusable is a reporting failure, not a performance one.
- Name the boundary before you cross it
- Measure what users feel, not what is easy to instrument
- Make every retried operation idempotent
- Write down the assumption that would invalidate the design
The pattern that scales: hierarchical auth + local filtering
The pattern that scales: hierarchical auth + local filtering is where this gets concrete. Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
Make the boundary explicit.
When you need document-level granularity
When you need document-level granularity is where this gets concrete. Make the boundary explicit. When one part of the system can only talk to another through a named interface, you can change either side without a meeting; when it cannot, every change becomes a negotiation.
Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument. A p50 that looks fine while the p99 is unusable is a reporting failure, not a performance one.
Start simple, add hierarchy when you need it
Consider start simple, add hierarchy when you need it. Measure before you optimise, then measure the thing users feel rather than the thing that is easy to instrument. A p50 that looks fine while the p99 is unusable is a reporting failure, not a performance one.
Idempotency is not a nice-to-have in any system with retries. Key on an identifier the caller supplies, store the outcome, and return the same answer to the same key rather than doing the work twice.
Where this leaves us
If there is one thing worth taking away, it is that the expensive decisions are the ones made implicitly. Making them on purpose costs an afternoon.
If you are working through the same problem and want to compare notes, the docs cover the mechanics and the console shows the behaviour on your own data.
Everything here, already built
Sign-in, enterprise SSO, directory provisioning, roles and an audit trail behind one API. Start with the quickstart and have a working sign-in this afternoon.