What the planned system can support
Source: Architecture Views, October 20, 2026. All text, comparison rows, decision entries and labels were read. The two architecture drawings and delivery diagram were also inspected in Arc. This is a compiled interpretation of other project records. It explicitly says neither architecture view has SUNY approval and that it was not checked against the team's Lucid diagrams.
E-008, planned experience depends on open choices: sign-in, checkout/payment, employer access, reporting and chatbot scope remain unsettled in this snapshot. The source describes limited proofs of concept, not an integrated live service. Confidence is strong about what this summary says; the underlying decisions and latest FRD still need comparison. [Sections Current direction and Open decisions.]
Proposed experience, section As proposed
The drawing reconstructs the March 14, 2025 proposal. Learners/guests and employers use Experience Cloud; campus staff use Education Cloud; central staff use reports. Identity goes from SUNY Shibboleth directly into Salesforce. Other systems connect through MuleSoft: campus student systems, Global ID, learning systems, payments, aid, reporting, helpdesks, labor data and credentials.
The source identifies an unclear authority split: Education Cloud is called the main record, while Data Cloud is called the single source of truth. Payment routing was described as the principal custom work, under 5%. One-time migration used SSIS/KingswaySoft, staging, test loads and reconciliation. Hosting was unchosen.
The author compares this with the RFP's reporting platform/HSDR concept and interprets the later Oracle lake as filling a gap. That relationship is the author's interpretation; the same file later says the lake/warehouse/HSDR relationship is unclear.
Current direction, section Current direction
- One public/learner/employer portal, with campus context in its URL. Guests browse; learners need an account to enroll. Employer administrators are vetted by campuses, with license details open. Staff/instructors have campus-limited access; central staff see statewide reports.
- SUNY builds the public identity service. Existing users use campus identity services; Global ID checks duplicates when accounts are created. The delivery details are open.
- Education Cloud holds the main records using standard objects. Data 360 receives an asynchronous copy for joining data, segmentation and unique counts. Marketing Cloud receives groups for email/text journeys. A translated send has not yet been demonstrated in the cited proof.
- Campus-owned SIS records remain read-only here. Integration needs error tracking, retry, an exception queue, reconciliation and campus-specific access controls. The common API approach is not settled.
- The SIS demonstration used a mock ESL program, completed October 12 under SUNY-95. It did not connect a real campus SIS. SUNY-96 reached a Marketing Cloud test environment and awaited QA. The diagram's green lines indicate these bounded proofs only.
- Learning-system and campus-helpdesk integrations are outside release 1 in this snapshot. Completion comes from the SIS; cases and knowledge stay in NCSIM. Direct state-aid integration is removed; funding amounts come from SIS. Live labor-market integration is removed; data is held in NCSIM.
- The Oracle interim feed is marked done in the cited plan. Warehouse pattern, reporting platform, payment routing product, inquiry-source scope, migration approach and hosting remain open. The core is being configured, and custom frameworks/APIs are in development or review. These are October source statuses, not verified live deployment results.
Nine decisions and why they matter
| Decision | What is open | Source references listed in the HTML |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Public identity | Metadata/build from SUNY and identity matching fields; affects account creation and sign-in. Named SUNY contact Paul Lienhard. | De-008/011/014/027; SUNY-100 |
| 2. Payment routing | Product purchase, who connects campus gateways, hosted/embedded checkout and ledger; finance described as blocked. | De-040; ARCH-Q2; FIN-PAY |
| 3. Cart platform | Experience or Commerce Cloud; affects licenses, records and available components. Deepak Saini named owner. | De-032; ARCH-Q1 |
| 4. Employer license | Partner Community or Customer Community Plus; source attributes removal of guest enrollment to license limits. | OPN-CAT-028; DEC-ENR-002 |
| 5. Reporting path | Relationship between interim Oracle lake, warehouse and HSDR; SUNY/SICAS dependencies. | De-028; D-18–21; RPT-DWH |
| 6. Reporting platform | Salesforce reports, Tableau or CRM Analytics; 30 requirements are an initial baseline. | RPT-OPS |
| 7. Integration approach | API layers and Composite versus custom REST approach; affects reliable exchange. | SUNY-95, 107–109, 115 |
| 8. Chatbot | Release 1 or 2, recommendation product, consent/oversight approach. | OPN-SUP-008; De-039; LCP-REC |
| 9. Hosting | Commercial/government cloud, regions and encryption choices under continental-US requirement. | Charter 6.2; FRD 13.10 |
The source assigns architecture decisions to a weekly Technical Review, scope changes to change control, and outcomes to D-05/D-06. Other open topics are message tooling (ARCH-Q6), release-1 Data 360 objects, OmniStudio/Titan/Student Success (ARCH-Q3–5), holds (De-036), and volumes (Ri-053).
All changes recorded in the comparison table
The table covers 16 areas: Data Cloud becomes a downstream copy; standard Education Cloud objects replace EDA; SUNY owns new public identity; Marketing Cloud is added; Oracle reporting is added with warehouse/platform open; payment routing moves to an unpurchased product; cart is newly explicit and open; guests lose enrollment; learning-system/helpdesk/state-aid integrations leave release 1; inquiry intake is added with scope open; custom APIs/frameworks exceed the proposal's narrow custom-code description; AI remains open; migration approach is unchosen; hosting remains open. These descriptions should be checked against current decisions before guiding implementation.
Delivery and source limitations
The proposed environment sequence was development, integration/migration, QA, acceptance, staging and production. The October diagram shows individual developer areas, MainDev, QA, Data 360 sandbox, integration testing, staging/acceptance and production, with a HotFix route. GitHub Actions with review/checks is planned; code repository creation is still pending in SUNY-117. Data 360 deployment is either Actions or manual package installation (SUNY-165). The narrative says sandboxes exist and pipeline design is complete, but repository ownership differs between draft-charter wording and SUNY handover expectations. [Environments section.]
Sources listed: March proposal/RFP, 167 Jira issues and 113 Confluence pages exported October 20, October 5 charter, and an August 10 FRD. The supplied FRD is newer. The author did not reconcile the views with Lucid diagrams SUNY-112/111/98/164. The file also makes an outside claim about retirement of older Salesforce automation; we have not adopted or independently verified that claim in this source-only phase.
Coverage: all six sections, both architecture diagrams, environment diagram, legends, labels, 16 comparison rows, nine decisions and sources. This review establishes the content of the supplied HTML, not the accuracy or approval of every underlying source it cites.
Related topics: cross-source findings.