This guide helps candidates develop the professional judgement needed to discuss architectural work in New Zealand. Begin with ethical responsibilities and regulatory reasoning, then connect practice decisions to integrated design, documentation and construction. Each concept includes an original worked scenario and a specific error to avoid. Use the examples to explain your reasoning, identify missing evidence and recognise when specialist input is needed.
Professional conduct and ethical judgement
1. Truthful representation of capability and status
Professional claims must accurately describe capability, experience and registration status. A practice must also avoid giving the impression that an unregistered employee is registered. Distinguish a person's actual contribution from the practice's collective experience, and describe specialist capability only where competent support genuinely exists.
Worked example: A graduate coordinated drawings under supervision. The project profile credits that role and identifies the supervising registered architect, rather than describing the graduate as the project's registered architect.
Mistake to avoid: Using an impressive job title or project credit that creates a misleading impression of registration or responsibility.
Reference: Code of Ethics; NZRAB Website
2. Unbiased judgement and fair assessment
Professional judgement must remain unprejudiced and unbiased. Evaluate evidence against relevant project criteria, including when a conclusion disadvantages a client or familiar contractor. Fairness requires consistent treatment; it does not mean overlooking deficiencies or giving every proposal the same outcome regardless of its merits.
Worked example: Two contractors propose different façade systems. You compare documented performance, interfaces and maintenance requirements using the same criteria, then explain why only one currently demonstrates suitability.
Mistake to avoid: Allowing loyalty, familiarity or commercial pressure to substitute for an evidence-based assessment.
Reference: Code of Ethics
3. Recognising and managing conflicts of interest
A significant actual or potential conflict must be avoided or managed and disclosed to all relevant parties. Identify the competing interest before making the affected decision. Disclosure alone may be insufficient: management can require independent assessment, changed responsibilities or withdrawal where impartial judgement cannot be maintained.
Worked example: Your sibling owns a tendering firm. You disclose the relationship to relevant parties and arrange independent tender evaluation, with your exclusion from scoring and selection documented.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming that a verbal disclosure automatically makes continued involvement acceptable.
Reference: Code of Ethics
4. Confidentiality and authorised disclosure
Client affairs remain confidential unless the client gives prior consent or disclosure is required by law. Permission should relate to the information, audience and purpose involved. Where another professional obligation creates a difficult disclosure question, establish the applicable legal position instead of treating confidentiality as an unlimited prohibition or unrestricted permission.
Worked example: A photographer requests an unpublished residential plan. You obtain the client's permission for the specific material and remove personal information outside that permission before releasing it.
Mistake to avoid: Treating a client's approval of project photography as permission to publish every project document.
Reference: Code of Ethics
5. Reporting credible safety concerns
An architect professionally involved in an architectural matter must bring it to the appropriate person or authority when reasonable grounds indicate that someone's safety could be at risk. Explain the observed concern and its basis, distinguish uncertainty from established facts, and keep a record of the communication and response.
Worked example: A site observation reveals an apparently unsecured guard beside an occupied circulation route. You promptly notify the appropriate responsible person, describe the location and evidence, and request confirmation of the response.
Mistake to avoid: Waiting for proof of an actual injury before communicating a credible safety risk.
Reference: Code of Ethics
6. Warning when professional advice is disregarded
If professional advice is not followed and the architect considers that this may cause significant harm, damage or financial loss, the recipient must be advised of the potential consequences. Make the warning specific enough to inform the decision: identify the rejected advice, foreseeable consequences and any further investigation needed.
Worked example: A client declines investigation of recurring water ingress. You explain that proceeding without identifying the cause could conceal deterioration and lead to further repair costs, then record the client's response.
Mistake to avoid: Recording only that the client rejected advice without explaining the significant consequences.
Reference: Code of Ethics
7. Competence, specialist support and supervision
Undertake work within your competence or obtain appropriate support, maintain relevant knowledge, and supervise delegated architectural work appropriately. Match review to complexity and consequence. Delegation transfers a task; it does not establish that the work is competent or remove the need to check its integration with the project.
Worked example: A junior prepares a complex envelope junction. An experienced reviewer checks the interfaces, and a specialist addresses an unfamiliar system before the detail is issued.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming an experienced employee or external consultant needs no review or coordination.
Reference: Code of Ethics
8. Written appointment and instruction to proceed
Professional services require appropriate written terms that the client has agreed to, together with an instruction to proceed. The terms must address scope, responsibility allocation, limitations, fees or fee calculation, and billing. Distinguish agreement on an appointment from permission to begin a particular service.
Worked example: A prospective client accepts your written appointment but asks you to wait for funding. You record that acceptance and defer design services until an instruction to proceed arrives.
Mistake to avoid: Treating an enthusiastic discussion, unsigned proposal or accepted appointment without an instruction as sufficient authorisation.
Reference: Code of Ethics
9. Remuneration and significant inducements
Fees and benefits must be those specified in written appointment or employment terms. Significant inducements that create or may create a conflict are prohibited, as are significant inducements used to procure an appointment or gain unfair advantage. Consider the benefit's effect on judgement, rather than relying on its description as hospitality.
Worked example: A supplier offers a valuable personal benefit conditional on specification. You decline it because it could compromise selection and is outside the agreed remuneration.
Mistake to avoid: Accepting a significant benefit because the client would pay the same product price.
Reference: Code of Ethics
10. Timely communication of significant issues
Effective systems should monitor quality, budget, cost estimates and timeline where applicable. Significant issues must be communicated to the client promptly enough to support decisions. Explain the issue, likely consequences, available options and any uncertainty; a dashboard alone does not demonstrate that the client received an intelligible warning.
Worked example: A revised estimate exceeds the agreed budget. You notify the client before further detailing, explain the main cost drivers and obtain direction on scope adjustment.
Mistake to avoid: Waiting for complete certainty while design decisions continue to increase the client's exposure.
Reference: Code of Ethics
11. Attribution and constructive professional criticism
Build professional reputation on your own performance and acknowledge significant contributions from others. Criticism of another architect must not be malicious or made in bad faith. Useful review identifies evidence, consequences and corrective options without inventing motives or using another person's difficulties to promote your practice.
Worked example: Reviewing an inherited project, you identify an unresolved drainage interface, credit the original design team and describe the coordination needed without making unsupported allegations about competence.
Mistake to avoid: Presenting a collaborative project as entirely your work or turning technical criticism into personal disparagement.
Reference: Code of Ethics
12. Respecting an existing professional appointment
When approached for services on a project, an architect who knows another registered architect has a current agreement must notify that architect. Establish the existing appointment and clarify the proposed role. Notification addresses professional conduct; it does not itself terminate an agreement or determine rights to documents.
Worked example: A client asks you to replace the current architect. You notify that architect and clarify appointment status and document-use permissions before agreeing how your services will proceed.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming the client's request has already ended the previous appointment or transferred all document rights.
Reference: Code of Ethics
Regulatory reasoning and compliance evidence
13. Distinguishing law, performance requirements and standards
In New Zealand work, distinguish legislation, Building Code performance requirements, referenced standards and project specifications. Their roles and applicability differ. Check the current authoritative documents and any incorporation or approval conditions before treating a technical recommendation as mandatory, or a contractual requirement as sufficient proof of regulatory compliance.
Worked example: A specification names a test standard. You check what the standard measures and how that evidence addresses the relevant performance requirement rather than assuming the citation proves compliance.
Mistake to avoid: Treating every published standard as automatically applicable law.
Reference: Code of Ethics
14. Prescribed solutions and alternative compliance reasoning
A defined compliance pathway depends on using it within its scope and conditions. A design outside those limits needs an appropriately supported compliance argument, rather than selected fragments from the pathway. Establish the performance required, the evidence offered and the limitations of calculations, testing or expert assessment.
Worked example: A façade geometry falls outside a selected solution's stated scope. You identify the departure and develop project-specific evidence with competent input instead of describing the whole façade as covered.
Mistake to avoid: Ignoring a pathway's limits while borrowing its details or dimensions.
Reference: Code of Ethics
15. Separating planning and building approval questions
Planning and building processes address different questions. Establish which approvals apply to the actual proposal and authority, without assuming one approval resolves every requirement. Track conditions and design dependencies separately, and check current local and national requirements before advising the client about the approval route.
Worked example: A building addition raises a planning question about its location and a building question about structural performance. You investigate both and record separate evidence and approval tasks.
Mistake to avoid: Interpreting approval of a building's location as approval of its construction.
Reference: Code of Ethics
16. Building a traceable compliance argument
A compliance argument connects a requirement to a design response and then to evidence. Evidence should address the proposed use, location and interfaces, with assumptions visible. A drawing, calculation or product report is useful only when its relevance and limitations can be explained.
Worked example: For a glazed assembly, you connect the required performance to the specified configuration, relevant test evidence and installation detail, identifying any difference between the tested and proposed assemblies.
Mistake to avoid: Collecting certificates without checking whether they cover the actual project configuration.
Reference: Code of Ethics
17. Accessibility as a continuous user journey
Evaluate accessibility across the whole journey: approach, entrance, movement, facilities and relevant emergency arrangements. A compliant-looking component can still fail when its interfaces obstruct use. Check applicable current requirements and involve appropriate expertise, while testing the design through realistic sequences rather than isolated dimensions.
Worked example: An accessible entrance opens onto a route narrowed by fixed furniture. You revise the layout so the usable journey continues beyond the door and verify the applicable clearances.
Mistake to avoid: Checking the entrance alone and assuming the rest of the building is accessible.
Reference: Code of Ethics
18. Coordinating architectural decisions with fire strategy
Fire strategy affects circulation, compartmentation, material choices, penetrations and building services. Architectural revisions must be checked against the project's competent fire-design advice and applicable requirements. Preserve the strategy's assumptions through documentation and construction rather than treating the fire report as an independent attachment.
Worked example: Moving a stair changes an escape arrangement. You obtain fire-design review and coordinate the affected plans, doors and service interfaces before issuing the revision.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a fire report remains applicable after changing the layout it assessed.
Reference: Code of Ethics
19. Structural and seismic interface coordination
Structural performance depends on a coherent load path and coordinated connections. Architectural components also need compatible movement and restraint arrangements, especially where structural and non-structural systems meet. Obtain competent structural advice rather than deriving project-specific capacities from generic details or architectural appearance.
Worked example: A façade crosses a movement joint. You coordinate its support and movement allowance with the structural engineer so the architectural detail does not unintentionally bridge the joint.
Mistake to avoid: Treating a non-structural component as unrelated to seismic movement or support requirements.
Reference: Code of Ethics
20. Checking the approval consequences of design changes
A change may affect performance, approval conditions and previously accepted evidence even when its visual effect is small. Compare the change with the documented and approved design, identify affected requirements, and confirm the current process with the relevant authority before implementation. Keep contractual and regulatory decisions distinct.
Worked example: A replacement window changes opening geometry and performance evidence. You review the affected requirements and establish whether updated approval documentation is needed before accepting its installation.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming client approval or a contractor's assurance resolves the regulatory consequences of a substitution.
Reference: Code of Ethics
Practice management and procurement
21. Converting a brief into measurable requirements
A useful brief separates objectives, constraints, priorities and unresolved assumptions. Translate broad wishes into requirements that can guide design and later review. Where objectives compete, obtain a clear priority rather than silently choosing on the client's behalf. Update the brief when an authorised decision changes it.
Worked example: A client wants a flexible meeting space for 24 people. You clarify furniture arrangements, storage, accessibility and acoustic expectations, then use those requirements to compare layouts.
Mistake to avoid: Treating attractive descriptive words as requirements that everyone interprets identically.
Reference: Code of Ethics
22. Stakeholder and cultural engagement
Identify whose knowledge, needs and decisions affect the project, including users and relevant mana whenua engagement. Clarify the purpose, participants, decision rights and agreed process early. Engagement should inform choices while recognising that statutory obligations and representation must be established for the particular project.
Worked example: A community facility brief identifies cultural outcomes. You agree an engagement process with the client and appropriate participants, then record how their input changes circulation and gathering spaces.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming one consultation represents every community or settles all approval obligations.
Reference: Code of Ethics
23. Allocating scope and interface responsibilities
An appointment should explain who produces, coordinates, reviews and approves each service or deliverable, together with any limitations. Pay particular attention to interfaces between consultants and separately appointed specialists. A responsibility allocation identifies work ownership; it does not eliminate the need for competent collaboration.
Worked example: A kitchen supplier designs equipment, while a services engineer designs connections. You record who supplies loads, checks clearances and integrates the information into architectural documents.
Mistake to avoid: Listing each consultant's package without assigning responsibility for the gaps between packages.
Reference: Code of Ethics
24. Calculating fees from stated assumptions
A time-based fee estimate combines anticipated hours and agreed rates, with its scope, assumptions and exclusions stated. An estimate is not automatically a fixed fee. Explain the billing method and how additional services will be authorised under the appointment before relying on the calculation.
Worked example: At agreed rates, 18 hours at $150 and seven hours at $180 produce $2,700 + $1,260 = $3,960, before any separately stated taxes or reimbursable expenses.
Mistake to avoid: Giving a single fee figure without explaining what work and billing assumptions it includes.
Reference: Code of Ethics
25. Distinguishing project budget from construction estimate
A project budget can contain construction, professional services, contingency and other identified costs. A construction estimate covers only its stated scope. Reconcile exclusions and avoid double counting before comparing totals. A contingency is a planning allowance for uncertainty, not permission to exceed the client's authorised budget.
Worked example: Construction is estimated at $840,000 and fees at $60,000. A stated 10% contingency on their $900,000 subtotal adds $90,000, giving $990,000 before other identified exclusions.
Mistake to avoid: Applying a percentage contingency to an unclear base or comparing totals with different inclusions.
Reference: Code of Ethics
26. Programme dependencies and decision gates
A programme should expose dependencies between information, decisions, approvals and deliverables. A stage gate checks whether the next stage has a reliable basis; it should identify unresolved assumptions rather than merely record that a date has arrived. Explain how delayed inputs affect downstream work.
Worked example: Detailed equipment layouts depend on an agreed operational brief. You schedule brief approval before coordination and show how a late decision would affect documentation, rather than compressing review invisibly.
Mistake to avoid: Displaying tasks as independent bars when several rely on the same unresolved decision.
Reference: Code of Ethics
27. Procurement and responsibility for design
Procurement arrangements affect who holds contracts, develops design, coordinates information and accepts particular risks. Compare routes against the project's priorities and the actual agreements. Labels such as traditional procurement or design and build do not, by themselves, establish the architect's services, authority or continuing responsibility.
Worked example: A client changes procurement route. You review who will complete specialist design and revise the proposed appointment and coordination plan to match the intended contractual relationships.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a familiar procurement label determines every party's obligations.
Reference: Code of Ethics
28. Comparing tenders on a consistent basis
Tender comparisons should distinguish price, scope, exclusions, qualifications and relevant delivery evidence. Normalise differences transparently using stated assumptions, then communicate remaining uncertainty. The lowest headline price may not be the lowest comparable offer, and unresolved scope should not be disguised as a precise adjustment.
Worked example: Tender A includes landscaping at $620,000. Tender B is $595,000 but excludes landscaping estimated at $35,000. On that stated basis, B becomes $630,000, subject to confirming the missing scope.
Mistake to avoid: Ranking headline totals without reconciling important exclusions.
Reference: Code of Ethics
29. Using a risk register to assign action
A useful risk record identifies the uncertain event, its cause, consequences, responsible owner and response. Review it as information changes. Qualitative likelihood and consequence ratings help prioritise attention, but they are judgement aids rather than measured probabilities or guarantees that a low-rated risk can be ignored.
Worked example: Unknown ground conditions could change foundations. The register assigns investigation to the appropriate specialist, records the decision deadline and identifies the cost and programme implications.
Mistake to avoid: Listing risks without an owner, response or next decision.
Reference: Code of Ethics
30. Recording decisions and authorised changes
Decision records should identify what was decided, by whom, on what information and with what consequences. Distinguish a suggestion, consultation response and authorised instruction. Link the decision to affected scope, budget and programme so later work is based on an intelligible record.
Worked example: A user requests an extra room, but only the client's nominated representative can authorise scope changes. You record the request and obtain that representative's decision before redesign.
Mistake to avoid: Treating meeting attendance or an informal preference as authority to change the commission.
Reference: Code of Ethics
Integrated design and environmental performance
31. Reading site conditions before selecting a form
Site analysis connects orientation, topography, access, exposure, neighbouring conditions and known hazards to design choices. Use verified site information and appropriate investigation rather than relying on a map's apparent precision. In New Zealand, northern exposure can offer useful solar access, but local shading and seasonal conditions still govern the result.
Worked example: A north-facing room appears promising, but a neighbouring building blocks winter sun. You revise the location after checking the obstruction rather than relying on orientation alone.
Mistake to avoid: Treating a preferred compass direction as proof of good environmental performance.
Reference: Code of Ethics
32. Balancing solar gain and overheating
Solar gain can reduce heating demand but can also cause overheating. Evaluate glazing, shading, occupancy, ventilation and thermal storage together across relevant seasons. Thermal mass stores heat; it does not remove it. Its benefit depends on exposure, charging conditions and a way to release unwanted heat.
Worked example: A west-facing meeting room overheats late in the day. You investigate external shading and glazing area alongside ventilation instead of adding internal mass as the sole response.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming more sunlight or more thermal mass always improves comfort.
Reference: Code of Ethics
33. Calculating steady-state fabric heat loss
For a simple steady-state comparison, heat flow through a component is Q = U × A × ΔT, where U is thermal transmittance, A is area and ΔT is temperature difference. This estimates one conductive contribution; it excludes ventilation, thermal bridges, solar gains and changing conditions.
Worked example: A 60 m² wall with U = 0.35 W/m²K and a 20 K temperature difference loses 0.35 × 60 × 20 = 420 W.
Mistake to avoid: Presenting one component's heat loss as the building's total energy demand.
Reference: Code of Ethics
34. Thermal bridges and cold-surface risk
A thermal bridge creates a local heat-flow path different from the main insulated assembly. It can increase heat loss and lower internal surface temperatures, affecting condensation risk. Review junction geometry, material continuity and indoor moisture conditions rather than assuming the nominal insulation value describes every part of the envelope.
Worked example: A metal support passes through insulation. You coordinate a suitable support strategy and assess the junction's thermal performance rather than counting the surrounding insulation alone.
Mistake to avoid: Averaging away a cold junction when local surface conditions are the concern.
Reference: Code of Ethics
35. Ventilation, airtightness and indoor air quality
Airtightness controls unintended leakage; ventilation supplies and removes air deliberately. One does not replace the other. Ventilation design must address occupancy, pollutant sources, moisture, distribution and system operation. Air-change calculations describe flow relative to volume but do not independently establish adequate indoor air quality.
Worked example: A 300 m³ space receives 450 m³/h of outdoor air, giving 1.5 air changes per hour. You still check occupancy and distribution before judging adequacy.
Mistake to avoid: Treating a calculated air-change rate as a universal ventilation target.
Reference: Code of Ethics
36. Daylight quality and visual comfort
Useful daylight depends on distribution, glare, contrast and the tasks performed, not simply window area. Consider room depth, surface reflectance, external obstruction and shading. Coordinate daylight with thermal performance because additional glazing may improve illumination while increasing unwanted heat gain or winter heat loss.
Worked example: A workstation receives bright direct sun while the back of the room remains dark. You test shading and layout changes rather than enlarging the same window without further assessment.
Mistake to avoid: Equating the brightest room with the best visual environment.
Reference: Code of Ethics
37. Distinguishing sound absorption from sound isolation
Absorption reduces reflected sound within a space; isolation limits transmission between spaces. Treat airborne paths, structural paths and flanking routes separately. Soft finishes can improve reverberation while doing little for transmission through gaps or shared construction. Specify performance for the actual acoustic problem and seek specialist assessment where needed.
Worked example: A meeting room echoes and leaks speech through a door gap. Absorptive finishes address reverberation, while a suitable door assembly and seals address the transmission path.
Mistake to avoid: Expecting acoustic ceiling panels to resolve every sound-transmission problem.
Reference: Code of Ethics
38. Estimating rainwater yield without confusing it with supply
A simplified collection estimate is rainfall depth multiplied by catchment area and an assumed collection efficiency. It describes potential yield over that event or period. Storage, losses, demand, water quality and dry intervals require separate assessment, with competent input for the intended use.
Worked example: An 80 m² roof receives 15 mm of rain. At an assumed 80% efficiency, yield is 80 × 0.015 × 0.8 = 0.96 m³, or 960 litres.
Mistake to avoid: Treating an event's potential collection volume as guaranteed usable water.
Reference: Code of Ethics
39. Comparing embodied impacts on an equivalent basis
Compare environmental impacts using equivalent function, quantities, study boundaries and service life. A lower impact per kilogram can still produce a higher total when more material is needed. Product declarations are useful evidence, but differences in declared units, assumptions and boundaries must be understood before ranking options.
Worked example: For equivalent assemblies, option A uses 80 units at 12 impact units each, totalling 960. Option B uses 60 at 20, totalling 1,200; other life-cycle differences still require review.
Mistake to avoid: Selecting solely by the smallest per-unit figure.
Reference: Code of Ethics
40. Designing for resilience and adaptation
Resilience considers how a building withstands disruption and recovers; adaptability considers how it accommodates changed needs. These overlap but are distinct. Identify credible future scenarios, dependencies and recovery needs, then compare options across structure, services, layout and maintenance without promising protection against every possible event.
Worked example: A community building may need future room subdivision. You coordinate service zoning and circulation so subdivision remains practical, while separately considering essential functions during a power interruption.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a flexible floor plan automatically provides operational resilience.
Reference: Code of Ethics
Coordinated design and documentation
41. Coordinating drawings, specifications and schedules
Project documents should communicate one coherent design. Drawings show geometry and relationships; specifications and schedules describe required properties, products and execution. Check repeated information for consistency and use the actual contract's document rules where interpretation is necessary. An assumed universal hierarchy cannot resolve every discrepancy.
Worked example: The door schedule calls for a rated assembly while the plan shows an incompatible opening. You resolve the design and update all affected documents before issue.
Mistake to avoid: Expecting a contractor to reconcile contradictory information by guessing which document governs.
Reference: Code of Ethics
42. Dimensions, scale and reliable measurement
Explicit dimensions communicate intended size; drawing scale supports representation but may be altered by reproduction. Distinguish a geometric calculation from verified construction information. Existing conditions should be measured or otherwise established where they affect fit, rather than inferred from an old drawing's nominal scale.
Worked example: At 1:50, an 84 mm drawing length represents 4,200 mm. Because the printed sheet may have been resized, you verify the stated dimension before using that result for coordination.
Mistake to avoid: Using a scaled measurement as authoritative despite conflicting dimensions or uncertain reproduction.
Reference: Code of Ethics
43. Tolerance accumulation at interfaces
Nominal dimensions do not guarantee fit. Review tolerances for each contributing component and the direction in which variation reduces clearance. A conservative interface check considers adverse combinations; a more refined tolerance analysis needs justified assumptions. Resolve inadequate clearance through design rather than expecting site adjustment to absorb everything.
Worked example: A nominal 6 mm gap faces possible reductions of 4 mm and 3 mm. The adverse clearance is 6 − 4 − 3 = −1 mm, indicating potential interference.
Mistake to avoid: Checking each component's tolerance separately while ignoring their combined effect.
Reference: Code of Ethics
44. Detailing continuous envelope control layers
Trace water, air and thermal control functions through junctions rather than treating each component independently. Show how layers connect, drain and accommodate movement. A good detail explains geometry and installation sequence, with materials suited to the exposure and assembly. Product performance alone cannot demonstrate a reliable junction.
Worked example: At a window sill, you trace water management from the opening to a defined discharge path and check its connection with adjacent layers using the selected system's requirements.
Mistake to avoid: Drawing isolated membranes without showing continuity, terminations or where water goes.
Reference: Code of Ethics
45. Coordinating spatial and functional clashes
Coordination must consider physical overlap, access, operation and maintenance. Components can fit geometrically yet obstruct a valve, equipment replacement or required movement. Use appropriate drawings or models and confirm responsibilities for resolving conflicts. A clash report is an input to judgement, not evidence that every interface works.
Worked example: A duct clears a beam but blocks access to a service panel. You coordinate a revised route that preserves both structural clearance and maintenance access.
Mistake to avoid: Declaring coordination complete because automated geometry checks find no intersections.
Reference: Code of Ethics
46. Selecting materials for exposure and compatibility
Material suitability depends on exposure, intended service, interfaces and maintenance as well as appearance. Check corrosion, moisture, movement and other relevant compatibility risks using reliable evidence and competent advice. A material that performs well alone may behave differently when connected to another material or used in an unsuitable environment.
Worked example: An external assembly combines dissimilar metals in a wet setting. You investigate corrosion compatibility and coordinate an appropriate separation or alternative specification.
Mistake to avoid: Choosing by finish and nominal strength while overlooking interface conditions.
Reference: Code of Ethics
47. Writing verifiable specification requirements
A useful specification states what performance or workmanship is required, how suitability will be demonstrated and what evidence is needed. Avoid vague adjectives that cannot guide selection or acceptance. Where a proprietary product is nominated, explain relevant constraints and the process for considering alternatives under the actual agreement.
Worked example: Instead of requiring a 'high-quality acoustic door', you identify the project's assessed acoustic performance and request applicable assembly evidence, including the relevant seals and installation conditions.
Mistake to avoid: Using promotional language as though it were an objectively checkable requirement.
Reference: Code of Ethics
48. Model information and the limits of precision
A detailed model can contain uncertain or provisional information. Establish the intended use, information status and responsibility for each significant element. Keep measured conditions, assumptions and design proposals distinguishable. Visual precision does not establish survey accuracy, construction suitability or verification of concealed conditions.
Worked example: An existing wall is modelled from an old plan. You mark its position as unverified and arrange measurement before designing fitted cabinetry against it.
Mistake to avoid: Treating a neatly aligned model element as a confirmed site fact.
Reference: Code of Ethics
49. Revision control and issue status
Control which documents are current, who receives them and the purpose for which they are issued. Revision records should make relevant changes identifiable, and superseded information should be clearly managed. An updated file stored internally does not establish that the people relying on it received the replacement.
Worked example: A revised ceiling layout changes lighting positions. You issue the coordinated revision to the relevant recipients, identify the change and record replacement of the earlier issue.
Mistake to avoid: Relying on a filename such as 'final' without a reliable issue and distribution record.
Reference: Code of Ethics
50. Buildability, replacement and maintenance access
Review how an assembly can be installed, inspected, maintained and eventually replaced. Consider access, sequence and interfaces without assuming responsibility for a contractor's methods beyond the appointment. A design can be drawable yet impractical because later components obstruct installation or because servicing requires destructive access.
Worked example: A service unit fits inside a cupboard, but its replacement path is blocked by permanent joinery. You revise the access arrangement and coordinate the required clearances.
Mistake to avoid: Checking only the installed position while ignoring installation and replacement routes.
Reference: Code of Ethics
Contract administration and construction observation
51. Authority under the actual contract
Contract administration depends on the executed agreements: who may instruct, assess, certify or decide particular matters. Establish the architect's role and limits before acting. Client representation and an evaluative contract role may require different judgement. Do not assume that an appointment gives powers found in an unrelated standard form.
Worked example: A client asks you to approve a cost adjustment. You first check your authority, the required evidence and the decision process in the project's contract.
Mistake to avoid: Issuing a binding instruction because that power existed on a previous project.
Reference: Code of Ethics
52. Risk-informed construction observation
Construction observation examines work within the agreed service and access arrangements. Prioritise consequential interfaces, unfamiliar systems and work that will become concealed, while making limitations clear. Observation is not continuous inspection or a guarantee of every item. Contractor quality responsibilities and specialist reviews must remain properly coordinated.
Worked example: An important concealed junction is approaching closure. You coordinate timely observation and record what was visible, any concerns and the follow-up needed.
Mistake to avoid: Describing a brief site visit as verification of all concealed or unobserved work.
Reference: Code of Ethics
53. Separating facts, assessments and instructions in reports
A site report should distinguish what was observed from technical interpretation, unanswered questions and actions. Identify locations and relevant evidence, and issue instructions only through the authorised process. Clear separation prevents a tentative observation from being mistaken for acceptance, a direction or a conclusion beyond the available evidence.
Worked example: You record visible staining, identify moisture ingress as a possible cause, and request investigation. You do not describe an unverified cause as established fact.
Mistake to avoid: Mixing speculation and observations so readers cannot tell what is actually known.
Reference: Code of Ethics
54. Resolving requests for information
A request for information should identify the uncertainty, relevant documents and decision needed. Establish whether the answer clarifies existing requirements or changes the design, scope or sequence. Coordinate affected disciplines and use the correct change process when necessary, rather than hiding a substantive change inside a routine response.
Worked example: A contractor asks which ceiling height governs conflicting drawings. You coordinate the intended height, correct the documents and assess whether the resolution has cost or time consequences.
Mistake to avoid: Calling every response a clarification regardless of its effect.
Reference: Code of Ethics
55. Assessing substitutions as complete assemblies
Evaluate a proposed substitution against required performance, compatibility, dimensions, evidence, maintenance and approval implications. Similar appearance or a single matching property does not establish equivalence. Separate technical assessment from contractual acceptance and identify any necessary specialist review before the authorised party makes a decision.
Worked example: A replacement cladding panel has the same colour but different fixing and movement requirements. You assess the whole revised assembly and its interfaces before recommending acceptance.
Mistake to avoid: Accepting a substitution solely because it is cheaper or visually similar.
Reference: Code of Ethics
56. Valuing a defined variation
A variation assessment needs a clear change, contractual basis, quantities and applicable valuation method. Separate entitlement from arithmetic, and identify additions, omissions and other relevant adjustments. Agreed rates simplify calculation only when they apply to the actual changed work and include the stated cost components.
Worked example: An authorised change adds 12 m² at an agreed inclusive rate of $140/m² and omits $900 of work. The net amount is $1,680 − $900 = $780.
Mistake to avoid: Calculating a price before establishing the changed scope and applicable valuation basis.
Reference: Code of Ethics
57. Assessing payment against supporting evidence
Payment assessment follows the contract and applicable requirements, using evidence appropriate to the claimed work and agreed valuation basis. Distinguish cumulative value from the amount currently payable. Review relevant adjustments without inventing standard retention, tax or certification rules, and do not certify beyond your authority or knowledge.
Worked example: Supported cumulative work value is $80,000, with $55,000 previously accounted for. The difference is $25,000 before any adjustments required by the actual contract.
Mistake to avoid: Paying the cumulative total again or assuming claimed value is automatically verified.
Reference: Code of Ethics
58. Evaluating delay through cause and effect
A delay assessment connects an event to the affected activities, programme logic and contractual entitlement. Distinguish time impact from cost entitlement; one does not automatically establish the other. Examine contemporaneous records, dependencies and possible overlapping causes instead of accepting a duration merely because an event occurred.
Worked example: A late selection affects a delivery, but the affected installation had available programme flexibility. You assess the actual completion impact rather than equating selection lateness with an extension.
Mistake to avoid: Adding every delayed activity directly to the completion date.
Reference: Code of Ethics
59. Completion, defects and handover evidence
Completion terminology and decision criteria depend on the contract; regulatory approvals and operational readiness are separate questions. Review remaining work, defects, required records and the effect on intended use through the authorised process. Handover information should support operation and maintenance rather than merely fill a document folder.
Worked example: A building looks finished, but required commissioning evidence is missing. You identify the outstanding evidence and its implications before making the completion assessment assigned to your role.
Mistake to avoid: Equating visual finish, occupation or one approval with every completion requirement.
Reference: Code of Ethics
60. Resolving disagreements through evidence and role clarity
Start a disagreement by identifying the disputed issue, applicable agreement, each party's position and relevant evidence. Keep records factual and distinguish technical uncertainty from contractual interpretation. Follow the agreed resolution process and obtain specialist advice where needed, while maintaining impartial judgement in any evaluative role.
Worked example: The parties dispute whether a detail changed. You compare issued revisions, instructions and scope records, identify the unresolved interpretation and direct it through the contract's agreed process.
Mistake to avoid: Treating the loudest account or the client's preference as sufficient evidence.
Reference: Code of Ethics
Sources
Source context:
All study guides