Question and use cases

Generated registrations, fail-closed defaults, and concrete adapters form one auditable tree.

Use this hierarchy when a default implementation wins unexpectedly or a new adapter must be wired.

Use the diagram during design review, incident diagnosis, code walkthroughs, and onboarding. It intentionally omits classes and projects unrelated to the focused question, so read it together with the source entry point and related topic pages.

This page covers only the named responsibilities and relationships; consult the relevant module documentation for capabilities not shown here.

Reading path

Step 1: Begin with generated registrations that use TryAdd semantics.
Step 2: Continue through fail-closed runtime defaults.
Step 3: Finish at explicit persistence and connector adapters registered by the composition root.

Do not skip arrow direction, numbering, or group titles: they express dependency or time direction, execution order, and responsibility boundaries. If the diagram differs from current source or accepted architecture decisions, correct the generated catalog immediately.

Legend and notation

Visual element	Meaning	What it does not imply
Coral focus	The decision point or primary path emphasized by this view	That the element is always more important or privileged
Blue boundary	An external system, protocol edge, or explicit boundary	That it must be an independently deployed service
Muted connector	A dependency, call, transition, or data flow as named by its label	Synchronous, same-transaction, or exactly-once behavior
Group frame	A responsibility, layer, or lifecycle phase	A team or physical-machine boundary

This is a HIERARCHY diagram. Use that form to understand the layout, then test your interpretation against the source facts below.

Key relationships and design meaning

Relationship 1

Source fact: Compile-time generated registrations use TryAdd semantics so later explicit wiring can override defaults.

Architectural meaning: TryAdd establishes safe generated defaults while preserving an explicit extension point for composition-root decisions.

Review action: Which registration is first, last, and conditional?

Relationship 2

Source fact: Core runtime installs fail-closed default ports before persistence and connector adapters.

Architectural meaning: Fail-closed defaults make missing commercial or infrastructure capabilities visible instead of silently allowing unsafe behavior.

Review action: Will absence of an external adapter fail closed?

Relationship 3

Source fact: Generated endpoint and persistence indexes avoid runtime assembly scanning.

Architectural meaning: Generated indexes keep startup deterministic and compatible with trimming because registration does not depend on reflection scanning.

Review action: Is runtime scanning being introduced where a generated index exists?

Design review questions

Answer each question when reviewing or implementing a related change. If code, tests, or an ADR cannot support the answer, do not decide from the diagram alone.

Which registration is first, last, and conditional?
Will absence of an external adapter fail closed?
Is runtime scanning being introduced where a generated index exists?

How to use the answers

Identify the single owner of the capability or rule.
Confirm that dependency, call, or event direction does not reverse ownership.
Capture the conclusion with an automated test or repeatable command.

Boundaries and common mistakes

Boundary 1

Changing registration order can silently select a different implementation.

Do not infer: A connector in the diagram does not mean every implementation uses synchronous calls, a shared transaction, or shared data ownership.
Review requirement: Will absence of an external adapter fail closed?

Boundary 2

A null/default adapter must fail closed when an operation requires an external capability.

Do not infer: A connector in the diagram does not mean every implementation uses synchronous calls, a shared transaction, or shared data ownership.
Review requirement: Is runtime scanning being introduced where a generated index exists?

Source verification and regeneration

The primary verification entry point is BitzOrcas.Api/Program.cs + CoreRuntimeRegistration.cs. Inspect it and its direct references before regenerating diagram assets and pages.

# Regenerate bilingual SVG, standalone HTML, and documentation pages
npm run diagrams

# Check locale pairs, references, safety attributes, accessibility, and canvas bounds
npm run verify:diagrams

# Confirm that generation changed only the intended diagrams and pages
git diff -- scripts/diagrams diagram-sources public/diagrams src/content/docs

# Verify internal links, MDX structure, and professional depth gates
npm run verify:docs
npm run audit:docs-depth

Change-completion checklist

Responsibilities, order, states, and relationships match current source.
Every new element helps answer this page’s question instead of turning the diagram into an inventory.
Arrows have explicit direction and semantics without implying nonexistent synchronous or transactional guarantees.
Chinese and English titles, labels, facts, and boundaries remain semantically equivalent.
The diagram remains readable on narrow screens, in fullscreen, and while zoomed, with no overlap or overflow.
Relevant architecture tests, integration tests, or verification commands have run.
If a long-lived constraint changed, its ADR or architecture documentation is updated.

Dependency-injection composition