Sure, for a data integration we needed the “high level” architecture diagram for business users (eg. Database here, data flows into it from azure data factory, which reads it from here, etc).

...and the low level resource group names, networks, firewall rules, etc. so it would actually work.

Exactly the same data, but less detail in the former.

Then the same diagram again, only this time it shows the data flows for the BI team.

The nodes in the diagrams are not different, the connections between them are, and some nodes (eg. Resource groups and NSGs aren’t relevant to some audiences.

Why can’t I have one diagram with layers (I can) that changes the layout to still be a nice diagram when I toggle some layers off (not possible in basically any diagramming tool I’ve ever used).

I run into this kind of issue which detailed architecture diagrams all the time; someone modified a design (or system) and the documentation is instantly out of date in all places except the one they remembered to update.

Um... so tldr; if you’ve ever had to document the exact network architecture down to protocol and port between systems because you actually need that level of detail to make it work, but also want to surface the same data to other people who really don’t care what the different network ranges in dev/sit/prod are.

Could you say that these layers are systems that make up a larger system? So, when you want to view a certain system, you see all its components as nodes. And if you click on a node, you can see its components.