1. Write the comparison contract
Record the site boundary source, survey date, area definitions, target program and known exclusions. Mark unverified planning inputs as assumptions. Choose one decision, such as the building arrangement to take into a consultant review.
2. Generate within a bounded question
Use a tool suited to the question: TestFit for filtered site solves, Forma for the connection between massing and layouts, or Snaptrude for early brief-to-block studies. These are alternative entry points; this guide does not assert a tested connection between them.
3. Normalize the alternatives
Export or transcribe each option into the same area and capacity table. Preserve rejected results, filter overruns and manual edits. If an area definition cannot be aligned, do not compare its headline number.
4. Review the failure case
Ask a qualified reviewer to inspect the constraints most likely to invalidate the preferred option. Record the source of each decision and the work needed before the next stage. A tool-generated maximum is an exploration result, not an entitlement.
Worked review scenario
Illustrative pilot: use one familiar site and compare three arrangements with the same program. The useful outcome is a defensible reason to keep one, not a promise to find the highest yield. No area or financial outcome is asserted here.
When the pilot is ready to accept
Every important number can be traced to a model or explicit assumption.
The preferred option survives manual checks of the constraints used to select it.
Setup, correction and review effort are recorded alongside any time saved.