Liquid Web Most internal debates about infrastructure placement aren’t really about technology. They’re about language.
When teams don’t share the same definitions, conversations stall. Risk gets oversimplified. Decisions feel harder than they should. And what should be straightforward infrastructure choices become sources of audit friction, operational uncertainty, and board-level questions.
This framework is meant to give you a clearer way to talk about where systems belong — without minimizing risk or overcomplicating things.
Core Systems
Core systems are the backbone: the ledger, payments, and transaction processing.
They are built for consistency and standardization. They change slowly — on purpose. Their strength is stability. They minimize risk across the institution.
Core systems protect what matters most. But that doesn’t mean they can handle everything. As institutions add new tools, services, and experiences, some important systems simply don’t fit inside the core without creating friction or hidden risk. When systems with different behaviors share the same infrastructure, performance becomes unpredictable, accountability gets murky, and failures become harder to contain.
Non-Core Systems
Non-core systems are everything else that supports:
- Customers
- Growth
- Operations
- Analysis
- Integrations
Non-core does not mean optional. It does not mean low impact. Many non-core systems are mission-critical.
Non-core systems often need to:
- Update frequently without extended approval cycles
- Handle variable or spiking traffic
- Integrate with external vendors or third-party services
- Support customer-facing experiences that change based on market demands
These characteristics don’t make them less important – they make them incompatible with the core’s design constraints.
Think about your public website, a digital onboarding tool, or a vendor integration. These systems may not touch the ledger, but if they fail, executives, boards, and regulators notice immediately. They are mission-critical, whether they live in the core or not.
Mission-Critical ≠ Core
Here’s a simple test: If a failure would require an executive update, the system is mission-critical.
That doesn’t automatically mean it belongs in the core. Mission-critical systems can exist outside the core — as long as they are:
- Well-governed with documented controls and clear responsibility models
- Properly isolated in dedicated environments that eliminate shared risk
- Clearly owned with accountability examiners can trace without ambiguity
Isolation and proper oversight make non-core systems easier to manage, explain, and defend — often more so than if they were absorbed into the core by default. When you can demonstrate predictable performance, clear accountability, and documented separation, examiner conversations become straightforward, not speculative.
Examiner-Visible ≠ Examiner-Hosted
Another common misunderstanding: If examiners care about a system, it must live in the most conservative environment.
In reality, regulators focus on controls, documentation, accountability, and risk awareness. Where a system lives matters far less than how clearly it can be explained.
Examiners want to understand:
- How the system behaves under pressure
- Who’s accountable when issues arise
- What controls are in place
- How failures are detected and contained
A non-core system with good governance is often easier to defend than one crammed into the core just because it seems “important enough.”
Why Non-Core Doesn’t Mean Lower Risk
Some non-core systems carry more reputational and regulatory risk than core systems:
- Public websites
- Digital onboarding
- Data exchange platforms
Risk isn’t hierarchical — it’s contextual. A poorly placed non-core system – one that shares resources with other workloads, lacks clear ownership, or operates without documented controls— creates more examiner questions, not fewer.
What This Means for Infrastructure Decisions
Once teams recognize that mission-critical systems don’t automatically belong in the core, the question shifts: What type of infrastructure gives us the control, visibility, and predictability these systems require?
For many non-core, mission-critical systems, the answer is dedicated, isolated environments, designed specifically for their behavior:
- Dedicated resources that eliminate performance variability caused by shared infrastructure
- Clear separation that makes accountability obvious, not ambiguous
- Complete visibility into how systems operate and perform
- Documentation that supports regulatory expectations without retrofitting
It’s not about moving everything out of the core, it’s moreso about giving critical workloads the right home.
A Shared Mental Model
When teams align on these distinctions:
- Conversations become calmer and more productive
- Tradeoffs are clearer and defensible
- Decisions are easier to explain to leadership, auditors, and examiners
- Infrastructure choices create confidence, not follow-up questions
The goal isn’t to minimize non-core systems. The goal is to place systems intentionally — based on how they behave, the risks they carry, and the infrastructure requirements they have – not just how important they feel.
When placement is thoughtful, institutions can support growth, innovation, and new capabilities without regulatory risk, operational instability, or board-level concerns. This framework doesn’t require wholesale changes or forced migrations; it’s just making infrastructure decisions that hold up so you can move forward with confidence