[ T_i = \textid_i, F_i, B_i, D_i, \textstatus_i ]

This paper presents the theoretical model, component design, and evaluation of Tango. Section 2 reviews related work. Section 3 defines the Tango synchronization protocol. Section 4 describes implementation architecture. Section 5 presents simulation results. Section 6 discusses limitations and future work. | Tool/Platform | Strengths | Weaknesses (w.r.t. full-stack atomicity) | |----------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------| | Vercel | Excellent frontend + serverless functions | No database migration orchestration | | Heroku | Simplicity | No native multi-service state sync | | ArgoCD | GitOps for Kubernetes | Stateless; assumes external CI for DB changes | | Netlify | Great for JAMstack | Backend services treated as add-ons |

has emerged as a low-code application builder. Its proposed module, Tango , addresses the following research question: How can a cloud-native platform provide real-time, bi-directional synchronization across all layers of a full-stack application without requiring custom scripting?

April 16, 2026

| Metric | Baseline (e.g., Jenkins+scripts) | Tango | Improvement | |--------|----------------------------------|-------|--------------| | Deployment conflicts (inconsistent state) | 27% | 7.3% | | | Mean time to recovery (MTTR, minutes) | 18.2 | 7.6 | 58% faster | | Rollback success rate | 68% | 94% | +26% | | Human intervention required | 41% | 12% | -29% |