這篇文純粹就是SPAM

For a scalable implementation, should these functions be separated into independent services, or managed through a unified orchestration layer?

I would recommend managing these services through a unified orchestration layer. Each service provider exposes its own APIs, data formats, and operational workflows. Encapsulating these provider-specific differences behind a common interface allows the application to interact with all providers consistently, simplifying orchestration, flow control, and overall application logic.

The underlying functions can still remain as separate services, while the orchestration layer coordinates them and hides provider-specific implementation details from the rest of the application.

What would a recommended architecture and database model look like for supporting multiple operators without creating carrier-specific logic throughout the application?

I would recommend using a provider adapter architecture with a unified internal data model. Each carrier integration should be implemented as a separate adapter that translates the carrier-specific API, data format, and status definitions into a common interface used by the rest of the application.

The application should only interact with standardized entities such as eSIMs, subscriptions, data plans, usage records, and billing records. Carrier-specific identifiers and additional fields can be stored separately, for example in mapping tables or metadata fields.

A possible database model could include tables such as carriers, esims, subscriptions, plans, carrier_plan_mappings, and usage_records. The core tables should remain carrier-independent, while provider-specific identifiers and configuration are isolated in dedicated mapping or metadata structures.

This approach prevents carrier-specific logic from spreading throughout the application and makes it easier to add or replace operators without significantly changing the core business logic.