I would rather view this as #170 fixes #141, and only mention "technical soundness".

@cwilso I'm not sure I understand your comment, but I think these are two different (certainly related) things:

• technical soundness is something we ensure through the deep review that happens through our WG discussions, and through our implementation experience requirements -- ensuring out specs are thorough, detailed, well-thought out
• architectural integrity is about ensuring the whole system hangs together, and we do it mainly through TAG review and that kind of thing

We do both, and both are valuable, but they are distinct; so that's why I kept them distinct in the PR.

@tantek I don't think folding to "technical architecture" encompasses both, because you can have good architecture and sloppy details. As I outlined in #173 (comment) we really do explicitly review for both.

[reverted to the original commit; please don't edit someone else's PR, it's very weird to have one's proposal unilaterally replaced with someone else's proposal]

[reverted to the original commit; please don't edit someone else's PR, it's very weird to have one's proposal unilaterally replaced with someone else's proposal]

Sorry this was me being clumsy with GitHub UI and attempting to suggest edits to a PR and clicking the wrong series of buttons / not understanding what I was doing. :/

@tantek Done!