From a door requirement to a decision receipt: a worked example
Ten doors, two eligible options and one missing carbon declaration. Follow the scope, the comparison and the record of the final choice.
1. Establish the same scope for every option
Imagine ten internal single-leaf doors in model revision 3, viewable A. Their shared governed requirement specifies a 900 × 2100 mm doorset and the same agreed functional and performance requirements. A count-based recipe requires one complete doorset per opening. Any real fire, acoustic, accessibility or installation requirements would need their own applicable evidence; a model label alone would not satisfy them.
2. Let AI prepare the work; validate the proposed choice
An assistant can interpret inconsistent door names and propose grouping the ten matching openings. Before a commitment, the workflow must validate the exact population, requirement version, count basis and eligible product evidence. An opening with ambiguous dimensions stays outside the established scope until resolved. Automation removes repetitive preparation; it does not turn a guess into a requirement.
3. Compare products on a common basis
Assume the fictional evidence for options A and B satisfies the same requirements. Each price covers one complete doorset in SEK, excluding VAT, installation and delivery. Each illustrative carbon factor covers the same complete doorset and A1–A3 product-stage boundary, using compatible declaration and assessment bases. These are product-supply costs and product-stage emissions, not installed costs or whole-life totals.
| Option | Price / doorset | A1–A3 / doorset | 10-door cost | 10-door A1–A3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · eligible | 4,000 SEK | 80 kgCO₂e | 40,000 SEK | 800 kgCO₂e |
| B · eligible | 4,400 SEK | 60 kgCO₂e | 44,000 SEK | 600 kgCO₂e |
| C · carbon evidence missing | 3,800 SEK | Unresolved | 38,000 SEK | Withheld |
For B, 10 × 4,400 SEK = 44,000 SEK and 10 × 60 kgCO₂e = 600 kgCO₂e. Against A, B costs 4,000 SEK more (10%) and has 200 kgCO₂e less A1–A3 impact (25%). Those differences do not decide the project’s priorities; they give the authorised decision-maker a comparable basis for choosing.
4. Keep missing evidence visible
Option C has an illustrative price but no usable carbon declaration. Its cost can be shown independently if pricing and quantity evidence are valid. Its carbon remains unresolved, never zero, and it cannot be ranked as the lowest-carbon option. If a carbon threshold is a mandatory requirement, C cannot be treated as satisfying it. The next action is to obtain and validate evidence for the exact product and scope.
5. Record the committed decision
Suppose the authorised reviewer selects B. The following is a readable sketch of what the decision record needs to preserve. It is not a generated receipt or cryptographic signature.
| Recorded item | Illustrative value |
|---|---|
| Scope | Model revision 3 · viewable A · the ten exact door element references |
| Requirements and recipe | Door requirement v2 · count-based doorset recipe v1 |
| Product and evidence | Option B v1 · fictional product evidence B-01 · carbon evidence B-A1A3-01 |
| Commercial basis | Price snapshot DEMO-01 v1 · 4,400 SEK / doorset · stated exclusions |
| Quantity and rules | 10 doorsets · pinned count, eligibility and calculation rule versions |
| Outputs and coverage | 44,000 SEK · 600 kgCO₂e A1–A3 · 10 of 10 doors in this scope |
| Unresolved scope | None for selected B within this example; C’s carbon remains unresolved |
| Decision history | Authorised reviewer, commitment time and any superseded decision reference |
6. Change a price without rewriting history
If a later price snapshot changes B to 4,600 SEK per doorset, a new comparison gives 46,000 SEK. The previous record still points to 4,400 SEK and 44,000 SEK. Replaying the old decision uses the old inputs and rules; evaluating the new price is a separate operation. Reproducibility demonstrates consistency, not that the original evidence was correct.
The team can inspect the quantity, commercial basis and carbon evidence behind the choice without rebuilding three disconnected spreadsheets. The 44,000 SEK and 600 kgCO₂e cover these ten doors only. They are not whole-building totals.
Explore the decision chain with us
Book a LITHIC walkthrough to discuss your project’s evidence, product choices and unresolved questions.