A code diff does not describe every consequence
A change may affect an API contract, a downstream consumer, a reporting model, or a customer workflow. The information needed to review that impact is often spread across code, service catalogs, documentation, and ownership records.
Retrieval can bring those records together around the changed entity. The aim is an inspectable review context, not an unexplained claim that the system has discovered every dependency automatically.
Make the dependency model concrete
Use stable identifiers for services, events, contracts, and owners. Define directed relationships such as consumes, depends on, and owned by. Keep a source reference that explains why each edge exists.
For a billing-event change, the first path might lead to a webhook consumer. Another path may pass through an event stream to a warehouse model. These paths answer different review questions and should remain distinguishable.
Add the relevant explanation
Graph traversal identifies connected records. AI Search can retrieve the contract passage, runbook, or earlier design note associated with those records. Together they can explain why a dependency matters to the change.
Keep the retrieved passages attached to their source identifiers. An engineer should be able to inspect the contract rather than rely on a summary that omits a field requirement or version condition.
Define the limit of the view
A dependency model is only as complete and current as its source records. Show the scope used for the review and retain ownership information so missing relationships can be corrected.
Begin with one service boundary and a few real changes. Compare the retrieved paths with what engineers actually needed during review. Use those observations to improve the model before expanding it across the organization.
Explore the next step
Continue with the interactive workflow. For the current setup and API contract, use the Polygres documentation.