import Callout from "@/components/Callout.astro" import ComparisonTable from "@/components/ComparisonTable.astro" import BenchmarkBadge from "@/components/BenchmarkBadge.astro" scenario="e2e-shop-order-saga" hardware="dev-laptop" jdk="26" date="2026-05-05" status="descriptive" reproducibility="complete" /> The previous article in this series — Where StructuredTaskScope Ends — argued the architectural case for building a native Flow engine instead of adopting an existing saga framework. This is the empirical sequel: what those frameworks actually cost when you measure all three saga guarantees, not just forward progress. I ran the comparative benchmark expecting latency differences. Spring + Axon did post the fastest p95 — but that surprised me less than something else in the same table. Under matched 3% failure injection, both Axon-based stacks reported zero compensations. Not "fewer than expected." Zero. That's what made me stop and look harder. Saga frameworks are evaluated on throughput and latency.…