Pressure-test de arquitectura
"How would you de-risk this migration?"
Antes de la call, cargaste la propuesta, notas de arquitectura objetivo y 3 postmortems de migraciones parecidas. Cuando el CTO pregunta, Minuta sugiere: "I would de-risk it in two phases: shadow traffic for 48 hours, feature flags around the new path, and a rollback lever owned by one person. The main risk is data drift, so I would measure that before cutover." La call pasa de confianza abstracta a criterio de arquitectura.
Límites de scope
"What is included, and what is explicitly out of scope?"
Subiste tu template de scope, SOWs anteriores y las notas de intake del cliente. Minuta arma el límite en inglés: "Included: migration plan, cutover runbook, and two validation checkpoints. Out of scope: rewriting the reporting layer or owning team staffing decisions. If those become necessary, I would price them as a separate workstream." Proteges margen sin sonar defensivo.
Justificación de presupuesto
"Your rate is high - why should we pay it?"
Cargaste tu rate sheet, testimonios y notas de outcome de proyectos anteriores. Minuta saca los receipts: "The rate maps to risk reduction: in similar migrations I shortened the decision loop, avoided one failed cutover, and left the team with a repeatable runbook. If useful, I can walk through the economics against the cost of a delayed migration." La conversación se mueve de precio a valor.
Prueba de seniority
"What tradeoff would you challenge us on?"
Adjuntaste notas de discovery y tu checklist de tradeoffs de arquitectura. Minuta sugiere una respuesta directa y diplomática: "I would challenge doing platform cleanup and product delivery in the same milestone. It looks efficient, but it hides two different risks. I would separate the dependency cleanup from the customer-visible release and make the acceptance criteria explicit." Suenas como alguien que ya vio ese modo de fallo.