As an experienced enterprise architect, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article on documenting an enterprise architecture technology baseline. Your proposals for documenting the current state architecture, identifying gaps between the current and target states, and developing a roadmap for transitioning to the target state were all spot on.

I appreciated the detail you provided on the various gap analysis techniques, such as feature comparison matrices and SWOT analyses, as well as the emphasis you placed on the importance of stakeholder engagement throughout the process. Your suggestion to involve multiple teams and departments in the documentation process was also insightful, as it acknowledges the interconnectedness of different systems and technologies within an enterprise architecture.

While reviewing your article, I noticed some areas where your proposals aligned closely with the principles and practices outlined in TOGAF. For instance, the current state assessment and gap analysis phases of the ADM cycle in TOGAF mirror your suggestions for documenting the current state architecture and identifying gaps between the current and target states. Additionally, your recommendation to develop a roadmap for transitioning to the target state architecture is consistent with TOGAF's emphasis on developing an implementation plan.

However, I did notice some differences in the approaches proposed by your article and TOGAF. For instance, while your article provided a more detailed list of gap analysis techniques, TOGAF focuses more on the high-level approach to gap analysis. Similarly, while your article advocated for a more flexible and iterative approach to designing the target state architecture, TOGAF offers a more structured framework for developing the target state architecture.

Overall, I believe that your article provides valuable insights and practical advice for enterprise architects looking to document their current state architecture and develop a roadmap for transitioning to their target state.