<p>The Solo Decision Architecture (SDA) framework operationalizes the foundational technique documented in the Methodological Layer of the Decision Architecture discipline (Hernandez and Montero 2026b) at the individual scale, where a single Decision Architect is the unit of accountability for a consequential commitment. The framework is currently implemented on the Convoking4 platform, and this paper documents that implementation. The Diagnostic Layer of the discipline (Hernandez and Montero 2026a) establishes that consequential decisions are distorted by the compounding interaction of human cognitive bias, organizational dynamics, and the technical properties of generative artificial intelligence, with distortion forming inside one person's thinking before it ever reaches a team. The Methodological Layer establishes the technique that responds to the diagnostic, backcasting and the dual lens with a decision architecture artifact as its output, and the five constraints any framework operationalizing the technique must meet.</p> <p>The implementation captures the practitioner's frame in a Brain Dump phase conducted human-only, extracts four coordinates under the Honest Extraction rule, and proceeds through a nine-phase session that holds aspiration and constraint together through the dual lens. Structural mechanisms enforce the methodology's conditions at specific gates: the Camera Test on milestone inspectability, the ADICE Matrix on stakeholder assumptions, the Flinch Test on commitment acceptance, and the bidirectional Verification on artifact convergence.</p> <p>The paper documents the implementation's structural answers to the methodology's five constraints, with platform-design enforcement of the four AI participation conditions producing the methodology's required conditions during the practitioner's normal use of the system rather than relying on the practitioner to maintain the conditions through self-discipline. The implementation does not eliminate the diagnostic's failure modes; it bounds their reach into the artifact through structural mechanisms documented across the paper. Practitioner discipline at specific points where the platform structures but does not strictly enforce remains essential, and the paper names honestly the failure modes the implementation can exhibit when applied dishonestly and the failure modes the implementation does not address.</p> <p>The SDA on Convoking4 is one of two platform-anchored implementations of the technique on a shared methodological foundation. The Business Decision Architecture (BDA) framework, forthcoming as the companion publication, operationalizes the same technique at the organizational scale. The two implementations interlock through practitioners who move between scales: the SDA produces audited individual frames that the BDA process integrates, and the BDA produces organizational decisions that individuals execute through their own SDA practice.</p> <p>The paper closes with empirical research questions specific to the SDA's claims, offered to the broader research community as a structured agenda for testing what the framework asserts about artifact examinability, the Stage 1 / Stage 2 boundary, milestone inspectability, commitment accountability, and the implementation's bounded scope.</p>