diff --git a/ASG_Framework.md b/ASG_Framework.md
index 54eae27..aba319b 100644
--- a/ASG_Framework.md
+++ b/ASG_Framework.md
@@ -4,11 +4,12 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-## The ASG Framework: Eight Pillars of Documentation
+## The ASG Framework: Nine Pillars of Documentation
 
 | Document | Purpose | Primary Audience | Format / Content | Example (SaaS Context) | Measurement (KPI) |
 |----------|---------|-----------------|------------------|------------------------|-------------------|
 | **Requirements** | Capture the **business intent** — why we're building this and what success looks like. Defines boundaries and user-visible outcomes. | Stakeholders, Product Owners, Lead Developers | User stories, PRDs, acceptance criteria, non-functional constraints. | "System must process tabular data from Julia to SvelteKit UI with <200ms latency for 5-member teams." | 95% of requests complete <200ms (synthetic monitoring). |
+| **Solution Design** | Translate requirements into an **imaginable solution** — how the system solves the user problem. Defines approach, components, and trade-offs before technical details. | Product Owners, Architects, Developers | Problem decomposition, solution approach, alternatives considered, high-level component diagram, decision rationale. | "Problem: Users need to compare wines. Solution: Build a comparison table with filtering, sorting, and visual comparison. Components: Data layer (Wine API), UI layer (Table component), Logic layer (Filter/Sort engine)." | 100% of user problems mapped to solution components before spec writing. |
 | **Specification** | The **technical contract** — precise rules for inputs, outputs, and data shape. Ensures consistency across dev and test. | Developers, QA Engineers, CI/CD pipelines | OpenAPI, Protobuf, AsyncAPI. Endpoint definitions, schemas, error codes. | `contract.yaml` defining a NATS subject that accepts Arrow streams with snake_case headers. | 100% of messages validated against spec (CI block rate). |
 | **UI Specification** | The **design contract** — precise rules for UI components, interactions, and visual patterns. Ensures consistency across design and implementation. | Product Designers, Frontend Developers, QA Engineers | Component libraries, style guides, interaction specs, design tokens. | Atomic design system with Figma tokens synced to CSS variables. | 100% of UI components match design spec (visual regression tests). |
 | **Walkthrough** | The **end-to-end trace** — maps the entire system flow from startup to cycle completion. Provides a "big picture" view that aligns users and developers, exposing architectural gaps before coding begins. | Product Owners, Architects, Developers | End-to-end user journey, sequence diagrams, state machine diagrams. Explicitly links to specification.md and ui-specification.md. | "User logs in → selects wine → edits details → saves → backend validates against spec → UI updates with error states." | 100% of user journeys traced across all layers before implementation starts. |
@@ -49,7 +50,42 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-### 2. Specification
+### 2. Solution Design
+`solution-design.md`
+
+**Purpose**: Translate requirements into an *imaginable solution* — how the system solves the user problem. Defines approach, components, and trade-offs before technical details.
+
+**Why It Matters**:
+- Prevents technical-first thinking that skips design decisions
+- Ensures the solution addresses the actual user problem, not just requirements
+- Enables architects to evaluate alternatives before committing to technical details
+- Creates alignment between product, design, and engineering on the approach
+- Provides a reference for evaluating specification choices against intended solution
+
+**Content Guidelines**:
+- Problem decomposition: Break down the user problem into smaller, solvable pieces
+- Solution approach: Describe the high-level approach (e.g., "Use event sourcing for audit trail", "Implement caching layer for performance")
+- Alternatives considered: Document at least 2-3 alternative approaches with rationale for why they were rejected
+- High-level component diagram: Show major components and their relationships (not technical details, just the big picture)
+- Decision rationale: Explain why each major decision was made (e.g., "Chose NATS over Kafka for simpler ops", "Used server-side rendering for SEO")
+- Risk assessment: Identify potential risks and how they will be mitigated
+- Traceability: Link each solution component to specific requirement ID(s) (e.g., FR-001, NFR-201) that it addresses
+
+**Best Practices**:
+- Write solution design from the user's perspective first, then justify technical choices
+- Keep it high-level—avoid technical specifics (API endpoints, data schemas, etc.)
+- Use diagrams that are easy to update (Mermaid.js)
+- Document trade-off decisions explicitly
+- Review solution design against requirements to verify completeness
+- Get sign-off from product, architecture, and engineering before moving to specification
+
+**Gap-Check Question**: Does the Solution Design clearly explain how the system solves the user problem, not just what it does?
+
+**Example Gap**: Requirements say "users can compare wines", but solution design only mentions "wine comparison API" without explaining how users will actually use the comparison feature.
+
+---
+
+### 3. Specification
 `specification.md`
 **Purpose**: The *technical contract* — precise rules for inputs, outputs, and data shape. Ensures consistency across dev and test.
 
@@ -77,7 +113,7 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-### 3. UI Specification
+### 4. UI Specification
 `ui-specification.md`
 
 **Purpose**: The *design contract* — precise rules for UI components, interactions, and visual patterns. Ensures consistency across design and implementation.
@@ -108,7 +144,7 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-### 4. Walkthrough
+### 5. Walkthrough
 `walkthrough.md`
 
 **Purpose**: The *end-to-end trace* — maps the entire system flow from startup to cycle completion, incorporating both internal logic and external interactions. Provides a "big picture" view that aligns users and developers, exposing architectural gaps before coding begins.
@@ -139,7 +175,7 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-### 5. Architecture
+### 6. Architecture
 `architecture.md`
 
 **Purpose**: The *blueprint* — how components fit together, interact, and scale. Guides system structure and trade-offs.
@@ -169,7 +205,7 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-### 6. Implementation
+### 7. Implementation
 
 **Purpose**: The *real code* — business logic, helpers, tests, configs. Where design becomes executable.
 
@@ -196,7 +232,7 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-### 7. Validation
+### 8. Validation
 `validation.md`
 
 **Purpose**: The *enforcer* — ensures implementation matches the spec. Blocks drift and human error.
@@ -225,7 +261,7 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 
 ---
 
-### 8. Runbook
+### 9. Runbook
 `runbook.md`
 
 **Purpose**: The *operational manual* — how the system lives in production, scales, and recovers. Guides on-call engineers.
@@ -243,8 +279,8 @@ This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It est
 - Troubleshooting guides for common issues
 - Runbook entries for specific error codes
 - Contact information and escalation paths
-- Explicit references to [`specification.md`](specification.md) (API contracts, data schemas, specification.md sections 3.1, 4.2)
-- Explicit references to [`ui-specification.md`](ui-specification.md) (components, interactions, visual states, ui-specification.md sections 15.1, 15.3)
+- Explicit references to [`specification.md`](specification.md) (API contracts, data schemas, specific endpoint sections)
+- Explicit references to [`ui-specification.md`](ui-specification.md) (components, interactions, visual states, specific component sections)
 
 **Best Practices**:
 - Write runbooks for every P1/P2 incident
@@ -266,43 +302,49 @@ Before writing any code or documentation, establish clear requirements. Ask:
 
 **Action**: Create a `docs/requirements/` directory and start with `PRD.md` and `KPIs.md`.
 
-### 2. Define the Specification First
+### 2. Define Solution Design
 
-Once requirements are stable, define the technical specification. This becomes the contract for implementation.
+Once requirements are stable, translate them into an imaginable solution. This ensures the technical approach solves the user problem, not just requirements.
+
+**Action**: Create `docs/solution-design/` with `solution-design.md`, problem decomposition, alternatives considered, high-level component diagram, and decision rationale.
+
+### 3. Define the Specification
+
+With solution design in place, define the technical specification. This becomes the contract for implementation.
 
 **Action**: Create `docs/specification/` with `contract.yaml` (or appropriate format) and `error-codes.md`.
 
-### 3. Define UI Specification Early
+### 4. Define UI Specification Early
 
 Create UI specifications before implementing frontend components. This ensures design consistency and provides a contract for implementation.
 
 **Action**: Create `docs/ui-specification/` with `component-library.md`, `style-guide.md`, and `design-tokens.json`.
 
-### 4. Create Walkthroughs Early
+### 5. Create Walkthroughs Early
 
 As soon as the UI specification is defined, create walkthroughs. This helps identify gaps in the flow and provides onboarding material. The walkthrough should be a single source of truth that explicitly links to specification.md and ui-specification.md.
 
 **Action**: Create `docs/walkthrough/` with `TOUR.md`, sequence diagrams, and cross-references to specification and UI spec sections.
 
-### 5. Design the Architecture
+### 6. Design the Architecture
 
-With requirements, specification, UI spec, and walkthrough in place, design the architecture. Document trade-off decisions explicitly.
+With requirements, solution design, specification, UI spec, and walkthrough in place, design the architecture. Document trade-off decisions explicitly.
 
 **Action**: Create `docs/architecture/` with Mermaid diagrams and `trade-offs.md`.
 
-### 6. Implement with Validation in Mind
+### 7. Implement with Validation in Mind
 
 Write implementation code that adheres to the specification. Build validation into the CI pipeline from day one.
 
 **Action**: Ensure test files are co-located with implementation and run on every commit.
 
-### 7. Automate Validation
+### 8. Automate Validation
 
 Build automated validation that runs in CI/CD. This ensures spec compliance and prevents drift.
 
 **Action**: Configure CI jobs to validate against specification and block PRs on violations.
 
-### 8. Document Operations from Day One
+### 9. Document Operations from Day One
 
 Create runbook entries as soon as deployment procedures are established. Update them when incidents occur.
 
@@ -316,7 +358,8 @@ Since all docs defined in the ASG Framework are **living documents** that evolve
 
 | Stage Transition | Goal | Gap-Check Question | Example Gap | Result |
 |------------------|------|-------------------|-------------|--------|
-| **Requirements → Specification** | Turn a "Wish" into a "Rule" | Does the Specification define all edge cases and conflict scenarios from the Requirements? | Requirement says "invite a teammate" but Specification doesn't define what happens if the teammate already has an account | Add a `UserConflict` rule to the Specification |
+| **Requirements → Solution Design** | Turn a "Wish" into a "Solution" | Does the Solution Design clearly explain how the system solves the user problem, not just what it does? | Requirements say "users can compare wines", but solution design only mentions "wine comparison API" without explaining how users will actually use the comparison feature | Add UI flow and user interaction patterns to the solution design |
+| **Solution Design → Specification** | Turn a "Solution" into a "Contract" | Does the Specification define all technical details that the solution approach requires? | Solution design says "use caching for performance", but Specification doesn't define cache invalidation strategy | Add cache TTL, invalidation rules, and error handling to Specification |
 | **Specification → UI Specification** | Turn a "Rule" into a "Button" | Does the UI Specification expose all the data and states defined in the Specification? | Specification says device must "Handshake" within 5 seconds, but UI Specification has no connection status indicator | Add a `Connection Status` component to UI Specification |
 | **UI Specification → Walkthrough** | Turn "Screens" into a "Story" | Does the Walkthrough reflect the complete flow including error states and timing? | Walkthrough shows "Success" screen, but Specification says backend process takes 2 minutes | Add a `Processing` state to UI Specification and `JobStatus` field to Specification |
 | **Walkthrough → Architecture** | Turn the "Story" into "Steel" | Does the Architecture support the performance and integration requirements defined in the Walkthrough? | Walkthrough shows 10 IoT sensors sending real-time updates, but Architecture uses REST API | Switch to NATS/MQTT for high-frequency data flow |
@@ -331,10 +374,11 @@ Since all docs defined in the ASG Framework are **living documents** that evolve
 ### How to Run Gap-Checks
 
 1. **Requirements Review**: After writing requirements, ask "What happens if X?" for each user story
-2. **Specification Review**: After writing the spec, verify every requirement has at least one rule with a corresponding requirement ID reference
-3. **UI Specification Review**: After writing UI Specification, verify every spec rule has at least one UI representation with a corresponding requirement ID reference
-4. **Walkthrough Review**: After writing walkthrough, verify every UI step has a corresponding backend flow
-5. **Architecture Review**: After designing architecture, verify every walkthrough flow is technically feasible and every architecture decision references specification and UI specification sections
+2. **Solution Design Review**: After writing solution design, verify every requirement is addressed by at least one solution component with a corresponding requirement ID reference
+3. **Specification Review**: After writing the spec, verify every requirement has at least one rule with a corresponding requirement ID reference
+4. **UI Specification Review**: After writing UI Specification, verify every spec rule has at least one UI representation with a corresponding requirement ID reference
+5. **Walkthrough Review**: After writing walkthrough, verify every UI step has a corresponding backend flow
+6. **Architecture Review**: After designing architecture, verify every walkthrough flow is technically feasible and every architecture decision references specification and UI specification sections
 
 ---
 
@@ -345,6 +389,7 @@ This habit ensures that each documentation stage is complete and validated befor
 | Stage | Debug Checklist | Why It Matters |
 |-------|-----------------|----------------|
 | **Requirements** | If I can't state the Value, I'm building a feature nobody needs. | Clarifies the business impact before technical discussion begins |
+| **Solution Design** | If I can't Imagine the solution, I'm building without a compass. | Ensures the technical approach solves the user problem before spec writing |
 | **Specification** | If I can't write a Rule with a requirement ID reference, I haven't thought the logic through. | Ensures traceability from technical rules to business requirements |
 | **UI Specification** | If I can't See it with a requirement ID reference, the user has no way to trigger the logic. | Ensures traceability from UI elements to business requirements |
 | **Walkthrough** | If I can't Trace the full flow, the system has a 'broken bridge'. | Identifies gaps between components before implementation begins |
@@ -381,6 +426,7 @@ Each documentation artifact has associated KPIs. Track these to ensure quality:
 | Document | KPI | Target |
 |----------|-----|--------|
 | Requirements | Requirement coverage | 100% of features have associated requirements |
+| Solution Design | Solution completeness | 100% of user problems mapped to solution components before spec writing |
 | Specification | Specification compliance rate | 100% of messages validate against spec |
 | UI Specification | UI spec compliance | 100% of components match design spec (visual regression tests) |
 | Architecture | Decision documentation | 100% of major decisions logged with trade-offs |
@@ -443,6 +489,91 @@ Each documentation artifact has associated KPIs. Track these to ensure quality:
 - [List verifiable conditions for sign-off, including validation gates]
 ```
 
+### Solution Design Template
+
+```markdown
+# Solution Design: Feature Name
+
+## 1. Problem Decomposition
+
+Break down the user problem into smaller, solvable pieces.
+
+| Problem | Description | User Impact |
+|---------|-------------|-------------|
+| [Problem ID] | Brief description of the problem | How this affects the user |
+
+**Example**: 
+- **P-001**: Users cannot compare multiple wines side-by-side → They must navigate between wine pages, losing context and making comparisons difficult
+
+## 2. Solution Approach
+
+Describe the high-level approach to solving the problem.
+
+**Approach**: [e.g., "Implement a comparison table with filtering, sorting, and visual comparison features"]
+
+**Key Principles**:
+- [e.g., "Keep comparison data in memory for instant updates"]
+- [e.g., "Use server-side rendering for SEO"]
+- [e.g., "Support unlimited wine comparisons for power users"]
+
+## 3. Alternatives Considered
+
+Document at least 2-3 alternative approaches with rationale.
+
+| Alternative | Pros | Cons | Decision |
+|-------------|------|------|----------|
+| Client-side comparison | Fast updates, no server load | Memory-intensive, no sharing | Rejected - memory constraints on mobile |
+| Server-side comparison | Centralized, scalable | Latency, complex state sync | Accepted - matches performance requirements |
+| Hybrid approach | Best of both worlds | Complex, hard to maintain | Rejected - over-engineering |
+
+## 4. High-Level Component Diagram
+
+```mermaid
+%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#3b82f6'}}}%%
+flowchart TD
+    A[User] --> B[Comparison UI]
+    B --> C[Comparison State]
+    B --> D[Wine API]
+    C --> D
+```
+
+**Component Descriptions**:
+- **[Component Name]**: [Brief description of responsibilities and how it solves part of the problem]
+  - Links to requirements: FR-001, NFR-201
+
+## 5. Decision Rationale
+
+Explain why each major decision was made.
+
+| Decision | Rationale | Alternatives Rejected |
+|----------|-----------|----------------------|
+| Use WebSockets for real-time updates | Required for <100ms feedback | REST polling - too slow, too many requests |
+| Store comparison list in localStorage | Allows offline comparison editing | Redux - overkill for this feature |
+| Server-side rendering for comparison export | SEO for shared comparisons | Client-side rendering - no SEO benefit |
+
+## 6. Risk Assessment
+
+Identify potential risks and mitigation strategies.
+
+| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation |
+|------|--------|-------------|------------|
+| Performance degradation with >5 wines | High | Medium | Implement performance profiling, limit to 10 wines max |
+| Race conditions in real-time updates | Medium | Low | Use optimistic updates with rollback |
+| Memory leaks from comparison state | Medium | Medium | Implement cleanup on unmount, use weak references |
+
+## 7. Requirements Traceability
+
+Link each solution component to specific requirements.
+
+| Solution Component | Requirement ID | Description |
+|-------------------|----------------|-------------|
+| Comparison table UI | FR-101 | Display wines in table format |
+| Filtering | FR-102 | Filter wines by criteria |
+| Sorting | FR-103 | Sort wines by any column |
+| Real-time updates | NFR-201 | Updates appear within 100ms |
+| Export comparison | FR-201 | Export comparison to PDF/CSV |
+
+
 ### Specification Template
 
 ```yaml
@@ -590,7 +721,7 @@ flowchart TD
 ## Conclusion
 
 This ASG Documentation Framework ensures that documentation is:
-- **Structured**: Eight distinct artifacts with clear purposes
+- **Structured**: Nine distinct artifacts with clear purposes
 - **Automated**: Validation and CI/CD integration
 - **Versioned**: All documentation in git with history
 - **Measurable**: KPIs for quality and effectiveness