<p>Individual bounded rationality has been documented, yet organizational theory lacks a unified formal framework for designing teams that offset cognitive limitations through structured complementarity. We introduce epistemic architecture, conceptualizing teams as systems where heterogeneous cognitive constraints, when coordinated, generate collective rationality exceeding individual capabilities. Unlike approaches that treat cognitive diversity as serendipitous, our framework specifies how perspective complementarity—the structured confrontation of divergent problem framings arising from distinct heuristic repertoires—produces epistemic gains. We formalize this through a model that predicts collective performance based on competence asymmetry, interface quality, and coordination costs, deriving propositions about team composition. Three mechanisms—competence mapping, structured dissent protocols, and temporal orchestration— were used to operationalize the framework. The model predicts the following: (1) maximum collective gains occur at intermediate heterogeneity with minimal shared foundations; (2) interface quality determines whether diversity aids or impairs performance; and (3) coordination costs show threshold effects beyond which homogeneity dominates. We validated the predictions by analyzing engineering failures and successes, demonstrating how identical competence profiles yield different outcomes based on the interface design. This framework advances existing theories by specifying the relationships between cognitive structures and collective outcomes, offering tools for optimizing the epistemic team architecture.</p>