Write Level 4 (Consistency) variants for anchor aliases and languages

[raifdmueller]

Part of EPIC #329 — depends on #331, #332, #333

Goal

Add consistency variants to existing questions. Test whether models give the same answer when the anchor is referenced by different names or in a different language.

Variant types

1. Aliases: Canonical name, Also-known-as, proponent reference (e.g., "TDD, London School" / "Mockist TDD" / "Outside-In TDD")
2. Language: German variant (e.g., "Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit 'TDD, London School' assoziiert?")

Approach

• Reuse questions from Level 1 and Level 3
• Add 3 alias variants + 1 language variant per question
• Aliases come from the Also-known-as field in the .adoc files
• Subset of ~10 anchors

Output

• Consistency section filled in the YAML specs for ~10 anchors

Estimated effort

~40 variants derived from existing questions. ~1 hour.

[JensGrote]

Contribution: Level 4 (Consistency) variants for 10 anchors

(German version below)

Here are consistency variants for 10 anchors — 3 alias variants + 1 German language variant per anchor, reusing existing Level 1 (recognition) questions. The test verifies that the LLM gives the same correct answer regardless of which name or language is used.

---

Format

Each entry adds a consistency section to the anchor's existing YAML spec. The variants field contains alias reformulations of the recognition question; language_variant is the German translation.

---

1. Clean Architecture

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Clean Architecture"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Uncle Bob''s Layered Architecture"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "The Clean Architecture (2017)"?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit "Clean Architecture" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: Martin Fowler
      B: Robert C. Martin
      C: Alistair Cockburn
      D: Eric Evans
    correct: B

2. Domain-Driven Design

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Domain-Driven Design"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "DDD"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software"?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit "Domain-Driven Design" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: Martin Fowler
      B: Kent Beck
      C: Eric Evans
      D: Vaughn Vernon
    correct: C

3. BDD (Behavior-Driven Development)

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "BDD (Behavior-Driven Development)"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Behaviour-Driven Development"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Given-When-Then specification style"?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit "Verhaltensgetriebene Entwicklung (BDD)" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: Kent Beck
      B: Dan North
      C: Aslak Hellesøy
      D: Martin Fowler
    correct: B

4. SOLID Principles

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "SOLID Principles"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "S.O.L.I.D."?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "The SOLID Object-Oriented Design Principles"?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit den "SOLID-Prinzipien" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: Gang of Four
      B: Robert C. Martin
      C: Martin Fowler
      D: Kent Beck
    correct: B

5. Cynefin Framework

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Cynefin Framework"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Cynefin" (the Welsh sensemaking framework)?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with the "Cynefin complexity domains model"?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit dem "Cynefin-Framework" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: Ralph Stacey
      B: Dave Snowden
      C: Peter Senge
      D: W. Edwards Deming
    correct: B

6. Event-Driven Architecture

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which of the following best describes "Event-Driven Architecture"?'
      - 'Which of the following best describes "EDA"?'
      - 'Which of the following best describes "Event-Based Architecture / Publish-Subscribe Architecture"?'
    language_variant: 'Welche der folgenden Beschreibungen passt am besten zu "Ereignisgesteuerte Architektur"?'
    options:
      A: A synchronous request-response pattern where services call each other directly via HTTP APIs
      B: An architecture style where components communicate through asynchronous events, enabling loose coupling and eventual consistency
      C: A database replication pattern where changes are propagated to read replicas in real-time
      D: A microservice deployment strategy using container orchestration for scaling individual services
    correct: B

7. Conventional Commits

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which of the following best describes "Conventional Commits"?'
      - 'Which of the following best describes the "feat:/fix:/chore: commit message convention"?'
      - 'Which of the following best describes "Structured Commit Messages (Angular convention)"?'
    language_variant: 'Welche der folgenden Beschreibungen passt am besten zu "Conventional Commits"?'
    options:
      A: A branching strategy that prescribes feature branches, develop, and release branches
      B: A structured commit message format with types (feat, fix, chore), optional scope, and breaking change indicators that enables automated versioning
      C: A code review process requiring two approvals before merging to the main branch
      D: A CI/CD pipeline configuration standard for automated testing and deployment
    correct: B

8. ADR according to Nygard

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "ADR (Architecture Decision Records)"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Lightweight Architecture Decision Records"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with the "Context-Decision-Consequences" ADR format?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit "Architecture Decision Records (ADR)" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: Simon Brown
      B: Michael Nygard
      C: Gernot Starke
      D: Oliver Kopp
    correct: B

9. Wardley Mapping

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Wardley Mapping"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Wardley Maps"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Value Chain Mapping (evolution axis)"?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit "Wardley Mapping" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: Michael Porter
      B: Simon Wardley
      C: Alexander Osterwalder
      D: Dave Snowden
    correct: B

10. Five Whys

  consistency:
    variants:
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "Five Whys"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "5 Whys root-cause analysis"?'
      - 'Which proponent is most closely associated with "The 5-Why technique from the Toyota Production System"?'
    language_variant: 'Welcher Proponent wird am engsten mit der "5-Warum-Methode" assoziiert?'
    options:
      A: W. Edwards Deming
      B: Taiichi Ohno
      C: Kaoru Ishikawa
      D: Walter Shewhart
    correct: B

---

Summary

#	Anchor	Alias variants	Language variant
1	Clean Architecture	3	1 (DE)
2	Domain-Driven Design	3	1 (DE)
3	BDD	3	1 (DE)
4	SOLID Principles	3	1 (DE)
5	Cynefin Framework	3	1 (DE)
6	Event-Driven Architecture	3	1 (DE)
7	Conventional Commits	3	1 (DE)
8	ADR according to Nygard	3	1 (DE)
9	Wardley Mapping	3	1 (DE)
10	Five Whys	3	1 (DE)
Total	10 anchors	30 variants	10 variants

40 total variants (30 alias + 10 language), matching the issue's estimate of ~40 derived from existing questions.

Happy to submit as a PR with the YAML updates. Can be combined with the #333 differentiation PR into a single "Complete Level 3+4 evaluation questions" branch.

Also relevant: #563 proposes making evaluation specs mandatory for new anchors going forward.

---

---

Beitrag: Level 4 (Consistency) Varianten für 10 Anker

(Deutsche Version)

Hier sind Consistency-Varianten für 10 Anker — 3 Alias-Varianten + 1 deutsche Sprachvariante pro Anker, basierend auf bestehenden Level-1-Fragen (Recognition). Der Test verifiziert dass das LLM dieselbe korrekte Antwort gibt unabhängig davon welcher Name oder welche Sprache verwendet wird.

Zusammenfassung

#	Anker	Alias-Varianten	Sprachvariante
1–10	(siehe oben)	je 3	je 1 (DE)
Gesamt	10 Anker	30 Varianten	10 Varianten

40 Varianten gesamt (30 Alias + 10 Sprache), entspricht der Schätzung im Issue von ~40 aus bestehenden Fragen abgeleitet.

Kann als PR mit den YAML-Updates eingereicht werden. Kann mit dem #333 Differentiation-PR zu einem einzelnen „Complete Level 3+4 evaluation questions"-Branch kombiniert werden.

Relevant: #563 schlägt vor Evaluation-Specs für neue Anker verpflichtend zu machen.