Notes from the field on the situations that bring teams to ARC: a deal that needs an application map, an audit that needs evidence, a system nobody left can explain.
Separation is a Day 2 problem planned on Day 1, against a Transition Services Agreement that gets more expensive every time it's extended. ARC builds the inventory, the overlap and the dependency picture in weeks, from the code itself.
Every add-on brings its own billing, scheduling and reporting systems. ARC maps what each one actually does, so the keep, merge or retire call rests on evidence rather than on whoever argues loudest.
Regulators want evidence. ARC produces a map of every business rule, the data it touches and the line of code it came from, so auditors stop asking engineers to explain things from memory.
Most legacy platforms cost more to keep alive than to run. ARC finds redundant services and dead code, and sizes the target against real usage rather than the shape the system grew into.
Coding assistants only help when they can understand the code they are in. ARC leaves a clean architecture, typed interfaces and documentation that lives with the code, plus an MCP server your agents can query.
Start with the inventory, tier it, and send discovery only where the decision needs it. A portfolio view that keeps its provenance, so every field says where it came from.
Business logic split between WinForms code-behind and stored procedures is the hardest kind to move. How ARC traces rules across both layers before anything is rebuilt.
When the one person who understands the system is two years from retirement, a walkthrough video and an hour of their time go further than a year of shadowing.
Bring an architect and a rough idea of the system. We'll size it, scope discovery and give you a fixed price on the call.