You are technically right.
The decisions still go
the wrong way.

You have been in that room. The architecture is sound. The tradeoffs are documented. The recommendation is clear.

And somewhere between your preparation and the moment the decision gets made, something happens — the direction softens, the timelines extend, the review board approves something adjacent to what you proposed, and the team builds something that is technically compliant and architecturally mediocre.

It is not that you are wrong. It is that you are not moving the people.

That is not a communication-skills problem. It is not a leadership problem. It is an architectural problem — specifically, the part of architecture that nobody trains for: the organisational, political, and communicative work of getting people to build the right thing together.

The technical training market is saturated. System design, C4, TOGAF, domain-driven design — there are fifty products for every one of these. On the other side: generic leadership courses that have never heard of Conway's Law, do not know what a DORA supervisory finding looks like, and will never use the phrase “ICT third-party concentration risk” in a sentence.

The space in the middle — the sociotechnical craft of architecture itself — is almost entirely empty.

That is the space this cohort occupies.

DORA enforcement is live. The informal supervisory grace period ended in early 2026. National Competent Authorities are now reviewing ICT governance frameworks in real audits, not dry runs. The AI Act's high-risk obligations for credit scoring and insurance pricing become fully applicable in August 2026.

Both raise the premium on one specific kind of architect: the person who can move the organisation, not just model it. The architect who can brief a CRO in 15 minutes, build the coalition to get a legacy migration actually started, write the ADR that doubles as DORA governance evidence, and hold distributed teams in genuine alignment rather than manufactured consensus.

That architect is not currently being trained anywhere. This cohort trains them.

Not frameworks. Not templates. Not a certificate. Specific capabilities that you will use in the week after the cohort ends.

• 01

  You can ride the elevator.

  You know which floor any conversation is happening on and you can switch register — the same architectural position, presented to an engineering team, a CFO, and a Head of Regulatory Affairs — without losing the material tradeoffs. You have practised this under time pressure, with peers who will tell you when you have lost the thread.

• 02

  You have a working influence map for a real current decision.

  Not a theoretical exercise — a completed political terrain model for the architectural decision you are currently trying to get made, with a coalition plan and per-stakeholder engagement scripts. This is work product, not homework.

• 03

  You can write a board narrative.

  A one-page decision document that a CRO or audit committee can read in five minutes and use to decide — structured in the language of their concerns, not yours. You have written one, had it critiqued by peers, revised it, and presented it live. It is ready to use.

• 04

  You know how to use an ADR as a thinking tool, not a documentation chore.

  And you know how to structure it so that the governance trail it produces satisfies DORA Article 6 requirements as a by-product of doing good architecture — not as additional overhead.

• 05

  You can identify silent misalignment before it shows up in production.

  Specifically in distributed, cross-cultural contexts — the communication fault lines that produce unanimous approval and fragmented implementation.

You are a senior engineer, principal engineer, or architect — or moving into an architecture function from a strong engineering background. You work in a bank, insurer, payment firm, or fintech operating under EU regulation.

You have the technical foundation. You have been doing this long enough to know that the technical foundation is not sufficient. You have experienced the review board that approves the wrong architecture, the migration that never actually starts, the stakeholder who agrees in the room and undermines outside it.

You are not looking for a leadership course or a soft-skills module. You are looking for a course that respects your technical depth and teaches the adjacent craft that makes the technical depth actually useful.

This is not a marketing constraint. Twelve participants is the number at which the board simulation, the influence-map peer critique, and the cultural-fault-line exercises actually work. Add a thirteenth and the simulation dynamics change. The cap is structural.

There is no waitlist for the founding cohort. If you are considering applying, apply before the seats fill. The next cohort will run at the market rate.

• Is this accredited? +

  No. It is a practitioner cohort, not a certification programme. The artefacts you produce (influence map, board narrative, ADR) are usable in your real work. That is the credential.

• How much time does this actually require? +

  Realistically, 2–3 hours per week: 90–120 minutes live, plus 1–2 hours of pre-work and async reflection. The pre-work is described in detail before you commit; there are no surprise demands.

• Can I attend if my employer is not EU-regulated? +

  Yes. The DORA and AI Act material provides the context and the stress-testing environment; it is not a compliance training for DORA-regulated firms. If you work in FS in any regulated jurisdiction, the material is directly applicable.

• Will sessions be recorded? +

  Yes. Recordings are available to enrolled participants for 12 months. You are expected to attend live for the simulation sessions (Weeks 4 and 6) — the simulation only works live.

• What if I am not yet in an architecture role? +

  If you are a senior engineer preparing to move into architecture in the next 12 months, and you are in regulated FS, the content is directly relevant. The pre-work will tell you whether you have enough context to get value from the exercises. If you are earlier in your career, the self-paced version (launching after the founding cohort) will be more appropriate.

• Is there a corporate rate for multiple seats? +

  Yes. For three or more seats from one organisation, contact us for an institutional rate. For five or more seats, a tailored delivery — specific to your organisation's regulatory context — may be a better fit.

12 seats.
Cohort 1 starts
1 September 2026.

The application is short: five qualifying questions, five minutes. The goal is to confirm you are the right participant for this cohort — not to screen for prestige credentials.