Skip to content
For professionals · ArchitectsPublished
🏛️

Decidi for architects

Find the design flaw before it’s poured in concrete.

Stress-test your work Chat free · no sign-up, no card

Have the constructability, the code compliance and the client’s real objection examined before you present — so the scheme you put your name to is one you’ve already defended.

Why architects use it
  • Pressure-test the design concept against the constraint that quietly breaks it — site, budget, or program.
  • Have a constructability lens flag the detail that’s elegant on paper and unbuildable in reality.
  • Surface the code, accessibility or egress issue before plan-check returns it.
  • Stress-test the design narrative against the client’s actual brief, not the brief you wished they’d given.
  • Get a critic to challenge the parti the way a tough jury or planning board would.
  • Check the assumptions in the spec so a confident model can’t bake in a wrong material or tolerance.
Stress-test before you ship
  • The design concept against site, budget and program constraints
  • Constructability — what’s elegant vs. what’s buildable
  • Code, accessibility and egress compliance
  • The brief — does the design answer what the client asked?
  • The parti under a tough design jury
  • Spec assumptions — materials, tolerances, performance
Adversarial passes we run
Constructability teardownCode & compliance sweepBrief-alignment checkDesign-jury critiqueSpec-assumption audit
A worked example — the design presentation before planning submission

Say your practice presents a mixed-use scheme to the client board next week, ahead of a planning submission. The design is strong, the deadline was stronger, and the presentation currently assumes the audience shares your conviction about the double-height entrance the QS keeps flagging.

The Constructability Reviewer stress-tests the details a board member’s builder friend will question — the entrance’s structural implications, the facade maintenance story, the cost line the QS flagged — while the Devil’s Advocate rehearses the planning objections the scheme will actually meet: overlooking, massing, parking. The Accessibility Advocate reviews the scheme as the person the regulations describe and the renders forget, and the End-User Advocate walks the building as a tenant rather than a jury. The Risk Officer ranks what could stall consent versus what is merely debate. You walk into the boardroom with the hard questions pre-answered and the one genuinely weak point of the scheme acknowledged on your terms, not discovered on theirs.

Stress-test your work now

Chat free · no sign-up, no card