Skip to content

2026-07-09-pilot-appeal-survey.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
218 lines (163 loc) · 35.5 KB

2026-07-09-pilot-appeal-survey.md

File metadata and controls

218 lines (163 loc) · 35.5 KB
Raw

Pilot-Appeal Survey: What Would Make CodeFrame Compelling to CA ADU Drafters

Date: 2026-07-09 Question: Before recruiting 1–3 practicing CA ADU drafters as pilot testers (roadmap Phase 5), what features and examples would make CodeFrame most compelling — in particular, are a foundation plan and roof framing plan the right next sheets, and what must they contain? Method: Four parallel research passes against primary sources — GitHub repos/READMEs, the California Residential Code and city/county plan-check checklists (PDFs fetched and read), government pre-approved ADU plan-set PDFs (downloaded, sheet indexes extracted), and first-party commercial tool sites. Every claim cites its owning source.

1. Open-source landscape: programmatic residential drawing generators

Headline: CodeFrame's exact niche is unoccupied, and foundation/framing plan generation is an open gap across all of OSS. The GitHub topic floorplan-generator has zero public repos (github.com/topics/floorplan-generator); construction-drawings has two tiny AI-parsing repos (6 and 4 stars), not generators (github.com/topics/construction-drawings). GitHub API searches for "house plan dxf generator" and "foundation plan dxf" return nothing.

The adjacent space splits into four clusters:

1.1 BIM tools that can produce 2D documentation (interactive, not deterministic)

Project What it does Showcase Activity
Bonsai / IfcOpenShell (2,591★, LGPL, very active) Plans/sections/elevations from IFC models with dimensions, tags, room labels, hatching, legends, sheet composition (SVG via Inkscape). Docs call the drawings module "incomplete and in early development" (docs) Four banner screenshots + full-project tutorials ending in drawing production (bonsaibim.org, tutorials) Very active
FreeCAD BIM Workbench (merged into FreeCAD 1.0, 32,020★) BIM authoring; README: 2D printable sheets "possible, but still not fully optimized"; exports SVG/DXF/DWG Single banner image Active
Homemaker add-on (159★, GPL-3.0) Crude Blender massing → full IFC building in one click (no 2D itself; pairs with Bonsai) Two before/after images — a very effective minimal pattern Active (2026-05)
ThatOpen engine_components (680★, MIT) Browser BIM toolkit: dimensions, floorplan navigation, DXF export Live deployed demo apps Very active
Archipack (380★, GPL) Parametric Blender walls/windows/roofs/trusses with dimensioned 2D SVG export YouTube video Dormant since 2020

1.2 Framing/structural generators — CodeFrame's stated gap

  • timber_framing_generator (3★): Revit walls → complete stud/plate/header/cripple framing via Rhino.Inside. Output is 3D geometry, not framing-plan sheets; README has zero images.
  • COMPAS Timber (40★, MIT, ETH Gramazio Kohler, active): timber structures and joinery — fabrication-oriented, not permit plans.
  • FreeCAD-Timber (19★, dormant 2019). The only literal "framing-plan-generator" repo on GitHub is empty (0★, README 404).

No OSS tool renders framing as 2D plan sheets, and foundation plans are effectively absent everywhere — the sole domain analog is egress-window-permit-sketch (1★, static SVG permit sheets with an IRC R310 code-compliance table as a sheet — an idea worth stealing).

1.3 Open-source house designs (static plan sets with strong showcases)

  • WikiHouse Skylark (238★) and especially Microhouse (309★): iso renders, embedded interactive Sketchfab 3D model, real DXF CNC cutting files, assembly manual, quantity/costing engine — the credibility comes from real artifacts sitting in the repo.
  • open-source-tiny-home (67★): free 308 sf plans, V2 ships framing blueprints; framed against "$1,000+ per plan" commercial sets — the same economic anchor CodeFrame can use.
  • Scaffold (59★): CSV + model → shopping lists, cutting diagrams, cost estimates — a direction CodeFrame schedules could extend toward.

1.4 ML floorplan generators (high stars, not construction-relevant)

HouseGAN (293★) / HouseGAN++ (249★, live demo at houseganpp.com) / house_diffusion (231★): bubble diagram → colored room-layout polygons; no dimensions, structure, or code content; research-frozen. FloorplanToBlender3d (598★) goes the inverse direction (image → 3D) but has the most showcase-rich README in the space: multiple GIFs of the script running and the result opening.

Lessons for an attractive showcase (from the strongest/weakest READMEs)

  1. Hero image of the actual output first — a full title-blocked plan sheet, not architecture diagrams (Microhouse vs. timber_framing_generator's zero images).
  2. Input → output as a pair — Homemaker's two-image "crude massing → full building" is the single most persuasive pattern seen (homemaker-addon); CodeFrame's version is "20-line config / one conversation → 10-sheet permit set."
  3. GIF of the generation run — motion sells "automated" (FloorplanToBlender3d).
  4. Ship a complete downloadable sample set in the repo (DXF + PDF + STEP), like WikiHouse's real cutting files (Microhouse).
  5. One-line economic pitch ("companies charge a minimum of $1,000 a plan" — open-source-tiny-home; "skip the $500 architect fee" — egress-window-permit-sketch).
  6. A hosted/live demo multiplies reach (houseganpp.com, ThatOpen demos).

2. CA permit-level content: foundation plan (slab-on-grade) and roof framing plan

Primary sources fetched: CRC 2022 chapters via UpCodes Ch.4, Ch.5, Ch.6, Ch.8 and ICC IRC 2021 R802.11; checklists: LA County LARUCP Residential Minimum Plan Submittal Requirements, LA County ADU Step-by-Step Guide, LADBS ADU Plan Check Correction Sheet, Sacramento County CO-06, Morgan Hill SFD Plan Content Checklist, Redding SFR Plans Examiner Checklist, San Diego IB 400.

2.1 Are these sheets explicitly required for ADUs? Yes, nearly everywhere

  • LA County: minimum ADU submittal = architectural plans + "Structural plans (foundation plan, framing plan, and structural calcs, if required)" + Title 24 (ADU Step-by-Step Guide).
  • LA City (LADBS): "Provide the following with each set of plans: Floor plans, Foundation plans, Framing plans, … Construction section, Two elevations…" (ADU correction sheet, item 5).
  • Sacramento County: "Structural Plan (if applicable): Foundation plan, floor & roof framing plans, truss calculation sheets and structural details" (CO-06, A.5).
  • Morgan Hill / Redding: dedicated "Foundation Plan" and "Roof Framing Plan" checklist sections (Morgan Hill, Redding).
  • San Diego (city): generic "Structural plans and details; Structural calculations and/or truss calculations (as applicable)" (IB 400).

2.2 Foundation plan (slab-on-grade) — minimum content

Linework / plan view:

  1. Location of all footings, stem walls, piers, grade beams, slabs (Morgan Hill; Redding). No checklist prescribes linetypes — dashed hidden footing lines are drafting convention, not a sourced requirement.
  2. Full dimensions — grid-to-grid, footing widths/lengths (Redding item "Dimensions"; LA County LARUCP item 12: structural plans "fully dimensioned").
  3. North arrow (Redding).
  4. Post pads / spread footings at point loads ("Main posts and correspondent spread footings" — Redding item 7).
  5. Hold-down locations on the foundation plan, keyed to the shear/braced-wall schedule (Redding item 5; Morgan Hill "Hold-down anchor size and locations"; LADBS J.12 "Show hold-down locations on the foundation plan").
  6. Section/detail cut callouts to typical and specific details on separate sheets (Redding item 6; LA County item 12).
  7. Bearing-wall shading/tagging (Redding item 4) and stepped footings where ground slopes >10:1 (Redding, citing CRC R403.1.5).

Annotations / schedules / notes: 8. Anchor bolts: min 1/2"-dia, max 6 ft o.c. (not 7 ft — the "7" is the 7-inch min embedment), ≥2 per plate section, one bolt ≤12" and ≥7 bolt diameters from each plate end, middle third of plate (CRC R403.1.6 via UpCodes); 3"×3"×0.229" plate washers on braced wall lines in SDC D0–D2 (CRC R602.11.1; Redding restates both). 9. Footing size/depth: Table R403.1(1) — 12" min width × 6" min thickness for one-story light-frame on 1,500–3,000 psf soil; bottom ≥12" below undisturbed grade (R403.1.4) (CRC Ch.4); LADBS J.4 requires dimensioned foundations + embedment depth shown. 10. Slab: min 3-1/2" thick (CRC R506.1); reinforcement size/spacing/location callouts (Morgan Hill; LA County item 12). Footing rebar in SDC D0–D2: one #4 top of stem wall, one #4 near bottom of footing; #4 verticals @ 4 ft o.c. if not monolithic (CRC R403.1.3/.1.3.1). 11. Vapor retarder: 2022 CRC R506.2.3 = 10-mil ASTM E1745 Class A, laps ≥6", over a 4" base course (CRC Ch.5). Jurisdictions vary — LADBS correction sheet still says 6-mil (J.1), Redding amends to 15-mil — so make this note a jurisdiction parameter, default 10-mil. 12. Schedules + notes blocks: hold-down, anchor-bolt, footing, wall-type schedules; foundation notes; concrete min 2,500 psi (Redding, citing R402.2; LADBS J.6). 13. Soils note: soil type and bearing value on plans (LA County item 18); soils report only when bearing >1,500 psf assumed or expansive/questionable soils (Sacramento CO-06 C.1). 14. UFER/grounding note appears in no fetched checklist as foundation-plan content (it is a CEC electrical item); underfloor vents apply only to the raised-floor alternative (1 sf/150 sf, R408 — Redding).

2.3 Roof framing plan — minimum content

  1. Rafter layout: location, direction arrows, spacing, span, size callouts ("Rafter location, dimension, direction, spacing and span" — Morgan Hill; "size, spacing, species and grade of all framing members" — Sacramento CO-06 A.5; LADBS J.9 "size, spacing and direction of girders, floor joists, ceiling joists, rafters, beam over ___, post under ___"). Spans per CRC Tables R802.4.1(1)–(9).
  2. Ridge / hip / valley members: location, direction, size (Morgan Hill; Redding). Ridge board ≥1" nominal, depth ≥ cut end of rafter; a supported ridge beam is required where ceiling joists/rafter ties don't provide continuous ties (CRC R802.3).
  3. Ceiling joists (layout + span; heel-joint connection per Table R802.5.2(1)) and rafter/collar ties with locations and connection details (Morgan Hill) — rafter ties min 2x4 @ 24" o.c. max (CRC R802.5.2.2); collar ties min 1x4 @ 4 ft o.c. max, upper third of attic (CRC R802.4.6). Without ties: "trusses shall be used or engineering shall be provided" (Redding, citing R802.3 & R802.10).
  4. Headers/beams with sizes and grade/engineered-wood type (Redding; headers per Table R602.7).
  5. Roof sheathing thickness, type, and nailing — 8d @ 6"/12" per Table R602.3(1); panels nailed to blocking (Morgan Hill; Redding).
  6. Blocking at exterior walls — solid block all rafters/trusses, (3) 8d toenails per block or clips (Redding, citing CRC R802.8).
  7. Connection callouts: rafter-to-wall, rafter-to-ridge details (Morgan Hill); uplift connectors required where uplift per rafter exceeds 200 lb per Table R802.11 (IRC R802.11 via ICC).
  8. Overhang dimensions, roof slopes, north arrow (Redding; Morgan Hill puts overhang/slope on the architectural roof plan).
  9. Attic ventilation locations and calcs — 1/150 or 1/300 (Morgan Hill; Redding, citing R806.2).
  10. If trusses: truss layout plan stamped/reviewed by the engineer of record; CA-engineer-stamped truss calc package + acceptance letter; truss design-drawing content per CRC/IRC R802.10.1 (Morgan Hill; Redding; Sacramento CO-06; UpCodes R802.10.1).

Companion sheet plan checkers expect: a braced-wall/shear-wall plan — panel locations, lengths, schedule (sheathing, nailing, anchor-bolt spacing, hold-down type, top-plate transfer hardware), BWL spacing ≤25 ft — with the foundation plan's hold-downs keyed to it (Morgan Hill; Redding per R602.10.1; LADBS J.10/J.16).

2.4 Engineering trigger vs. prescriptive path

A single-story detached ADU can normally stay prescriptive/conventional: engineering is required only when "deviating from the conventional construction provisions" (LA County LARUCP item 13; Sacramento CO-06 B.1; LADBS J.7 citing R301.1.3). LA even allows "standard notes and details" (LARUCP Wood Frame Prescriptive Provisions) in lieu of calcs — with WFPP compliance note, BWL spacing ≤25 ft, and min bracing lengths (LA County ADU guide; LADBS J.16–17). Triggers that break the prescriptive path: irregular plan, BWL >25 ft, unsupported ridge beams, steep slopes (LADBS J.19), expansive soils, and manufactured trusses (always a stamped deferred package).

Drawing standards: min 1/8" scale (1/4" recommended), sheets ≥18"×24" (24"×36" recommended) (LA County LARUCP items 3–4); Morgan Hill min 24"×36". Checklists mandate what appears, never linetypes; the closest sourced styling rule is Redding's wall-type "shading" and "shaded and tagged" braced-wall panels.

3. County pre-approved / standard ADU plan programs (the reference for "complete attractive example")

Four actual government plan-set PDFs were downloaded and their sheet indexes extracted.

3.1 Programs and what they publish

  • LA County (pre-approved page): three free county-owned plans — A: 1,200 sf/3BR, B: 1,200 sf/2BR, C: 800 sf/1BR (Plan A PDF, Plan C PDF). Plan A is a 9-sheet set: SP-1 Site Plan (cover doubling as a template — "PLACE YOUR SITE PLAN ON THIS SHEET" — with sheet index, vicinity map, code list, design basis: roof LL 20 psf, DL 12 psf, wind 110 mph Exp. C, conventional light-frame), A1 Floor Plan, A2 Electrical Plan, A3/A4 Elevations, A5 Roof Plan/Truss Layout, A6 Sections, S1 Foundation Plan, S2 Roof Framing, CS-1 Min. Construction Specifications. (The sheets carry San Diego County "PDS 659" references — LA County adapted SD County's sets.)
  • LA City LADBS (gallery): ~96 designer plans (≈20 currently approved), each card = thumbnail rendering + plan number + designer + stories/BR/sf + status; 200–1,200 sf. The free city-owned YOU-ADU (455 sf 1BR, page) is presented with four styling personas (In-Law, Guest, Renter, Artist) and is a 21-sheet set (PDF): G-0.0 Cover (applicant plot plan), G-0.1–G-0.2 General/Green notes, G-0.3/G-0.4 Title 24, A-2.0 Floor, A-2.1 Roof, A-3.0/A-3.1 Elevations, A-4.0 Sections, A-5.0 Interior Elevations, A-7.0 Schedules, A-8.0/A-8.1 Details/Casework, S0.00 Structural General Notes, S0.10 Concrete Details, S0.20–S0.23 Wood Details, S1.00 Foundation and Roof Framing Plans, S8.1.
  • San Diego County (adu_plans page): eight free plans (600–1,728 sf), "approximately 85% complete," each as 36"×24" and 17"×11" PDF — Plans G/H also ship as CAD .dwg files (government precedent for CAD deliverables). Plan F (600 sf 1BR) is 13 pages: cover/SP-1 site template → stormwater/BMP sheets → A1–A6 → S1 Foundation Plan & Details → S2 Roof Framing & Details → CS-1 (2 pp.). A fill-in Dwelling Unit Checklist (pds607) itemizes what the owner completes. The City of San Diego accepts these under AB 1332 with 30-day review (city page).
  • Sacramento City (Shelf Ready plans): three free all-electric plans — Studio 367 sf, 1BR 559 sf, 2BR 747 sf. The Studio set is 17 sheets: T1.1 Title, C1.1 Site (applicant-provided), FSD.1 Fire Separation Details, A1.1 Code Requirements, A2.1 Floor/Dimensioned/Roof/Electrical, A3.1 Elevations, S1.1 Foundation, Wall and Roof/Ceiling Framing Plans, S2.1 Structural Section, SN.1 Structural Notes, SD.1 Structural Details, EN.1–EN.5 Energy (alternate sheets per HVAC choice), GB.1–GB.2 CALGreen. Sacramento County publishes five named models — A1 "Laurel"/A2 "Willow" 460 sf, B "Redwood" 870 sf, C "Elderberry" 1,000 sf, D "Magnolia" 1,184 sf — fully engineered incl. truss and energy calcs (county page).
  • San Jose (program page): 21 pre-approved vendors (Acton ADU, Abodu, CityPaks…), plans kept under 750 sf so no impact fees apply; presented as a vendor list, not downloads (San Jose Spotlight).
  • Seattle ADUniverse (gallery, program summary PDF): 6–10 designer-owned pre-approved DADUs; homeowner pays a designer royalty (e.g. CAST "Cedar Cottage" 467 sf, $1,000 license per ballardbackyardcottages.com); headline metric: permitting drops from 4–8 months to 2–6 weeks.
  • Others: HEART of San Mateo County GLADUR free plans, 400–800 sf (heartofsmc.org); Sonoma "ADU Ready" pre-reviewed vendor plans, ~60 → ~30-day review (permitsonoma.org/aduready); Encinitas PRADU — eight free sets, 2 firms × 4 unit types, each with three exterior schemes (A/B/C) varying siding/roofing/trim, "approximately 85% complete," accepted by Encinitas/La Mesa/San Diego (DZN Partners, snapadu). Statewide: AB 1332 required every CA local agency to run a preapproved-plans process by Jan 1, 2025 (HCD ADU handbook update).

3.2 Canonical ADU permit-set sheet index (union of the extracted sets)

  1. Cover/Title (project data, code list, sheet index, vicinity map, design criteria)
  2. Site plan — always an applicant-completed template sheet
  3. General notes & code requirements
  4. CALGreen notes
  5. Fire-separation-distance details (near-lot-line)
  6. Stormwater/BMP (county sets)
  7. Floor plan (dimensioned)
  8. Electrical (+M/P) plan
  9. Roof plan / truss layout
  10. Elevations (all four)
  11. Building sections
  12. Interior elevations (city sets only)
  13. Door/window schedules
  14. Architectural details/casework
  15. Structural general notes + typical concrete/wood details
  16. Foundation plan (S1)
  17. Roof (and wall/ceiling) framing plan (S2)
  18. Structural sections/details
  19. Title 24 energy sheets

Minimum viable government-approved skeleton = the LA/SD County 10-sheet set: cover+site template, A1–A6, S1–S2, CS-1. Every government set includes S1 and S2; none omits them.

3.3 Presentation patterns

  1. Rendering-first gallery cards with a stat strip (sf/BR/stories/designer/status) — LADBS, ADUniverse.
  2. A free government "anchor" plan beside a licensed designer catalog — YOU-ADU, LA County A/B/C.
  3. Named personas / style variants resell one floor plan (YOU-ADU's In-Law/Guest/Renter/Artist; DZN's A/B/C exterior schemes; Sacramento County's tree names).
  4. Explicit "what's left for you" honesty: site-plan template baked into the set, fill-in checklists, "approximately 85% complete" — near-identical to CodeFrame's "60–70% skeleton" framing, and quantified payoffs ($8k–14k design savings; 4–8 months → 2–6 weeks).
  5. Spec tables + cost estimates live in the nonprofit/aggregator layer (e.g. Housing Innovation Collaborative).

4. Commercial AI floor-plan / permit-drawing tools

Tool Positioning What the site leads with CodeFrame-relevant
Maket AI floor plans for homeowners/pros 3-step workflow narrative, free trial; freemium ~$20/mo (pricing) DXF/PDF/PNG export, zoning setback checks (features); its own blog concedes no AI generator produces permit-review-ready drawings (blog)
Higharc "Homebuilding AI for design to construction" (production builders) Business metrics: "15% margin increase," "2 weeks from plan concept to permit," "$30M ROI"; demo gated Closest analog: one live model → plans/BIM/CDs auto-update; "10x faster than traditional CAD line drawing"; "permit-ready drawing set… with one click" (Studio page, blog)
TestFit Real-estate feasibility/site plans Hero demo video, customer logos, "4x faster," "6,200+ active users" Export to Revit/AutoCAD/SketchUp/Excel/PDF is a headline feature
ArchiLabs Browser BIM automation with deterministic validation Capability list; recruits via pilot programs, no public pricing Automated sheets/annotations/schedules; DXF-to-3D; validates the pilot-recruiting model CodeFrame is using
Hypar Generative building "functions" platform Interactive in-browser generator + open function marketplace (aecmag, github) Revit-compatible exports
Snaptrude "From brief to BIM" design OS Animated hero + case studies ("4-day workflows to 4 hours") Code/zoning analysis, Revit/Rhino export
Arcol Browser massing/floorplans for architects Conversion-focused page, no metric claims —
Cove "Architecture firm built around AI" "200+ on-time projects," 12 months → 3; cost-of-delay storytelling Consultation model, no pricing
Symbium "Instant permitting" (B2G) Consumer tool: "Learn instantly if you can have an ADU on your property" — address-search instant feasibility (build.symbium.com) The killer ADU-specific hook: parcel-keyed zero-commitment demo
Abodu Prefab ADUs "Pre-Approved Plans. Fixed Pricing." — six state-pre-approved plans 340–1,200 sf; sells skipping plan-check delay Plan catalog as product
Villa CA's leading ADU builder Fixed plans 440–1,200 sf from ~$225k incl. permitting; setback-aware lot-placement map at app.villahomes.com/map (Dwell) In LA's standard-plan catalog (LADBS listing)
Samara Premium prefab ("Backyard") Lifestyle photography + 3D configurator, from $152k —
Cottage ADU design/permit marketplace Dead (cottage.co HTTP 525; acquired by RenoFi per LinkedIn); legacy = LADBS standard plans Cautionary: standalone drafting-marketplace model didn't survive
PermitFlow Permit paperwork automation "Construction's AI Workforce," 7K+ AHJs, "2.5X faster approvals" Adjacent, not drawing generation
Chief Architect Established resi CAD, $1,995/yr Gold-standard showcase: samples gallery with complete downloadable sample PDF plan sets + project files + 3D models + video walkthroughs Claims automatic stick/truss framing, auto materials lists and schedules — the incumbent feature bar
SoftPlan "A better way to draw houses," ~$169/mo Trial-first funnel Working drawings + dimensioning, auto materials lists
AutoCAD Architecture Toolset upsell Markets almost entirely on a productivity study: "75% time saved on elevations, 65% sections, 71% sheet layouts" (study) Task-level time metrics as the whole pitch

Demo/showcase patterns that work

  1. Publish real, complete output — downloadable full sample plan sets are the strongest proof for drafters (Chief Architect samples; Abodu/Villa plan catalogs).
  2. Quantify time-to-deliverable per task, not vaguely ("75% faster elevations"; "2 weeks from plan concept to permit"; "4x faster").
  3. Short animated GIF/clip of a change propagating into drawings, not a long hero film (Higharc Studio, Snaptrude).
  4. "Fits your existing workflow" as a headline — DXF/Revit/AutoCAD export fidelity is the credibility test for drafters (TestFit, Maket).
  5. Instant parcel-keyed demo is the ADU-specific hook (Symbium, Villa's map).
  6. Honesty about the permit line differentiates — only enterprise Higharc claims one-click permit-ready; Maket disclaims it; "deterministic skeletons a CA drafter finishes" occupies open ground, and ArchiLabs shows deterministic-validation + pilot-program recruiting is a live playbook.

Implications for CodeFrame

Candidate features, ranked by appeal-to-drafters vs. build cost

  1. Foundation plan sheet (S1) — highest appeal, low-to-moderate cost. Build it. Explicitly required by LA County, LADBS, and Sacramento ADU checklists (§2.1); present in every government pre-approved set (§3.2); absent from all of OSS (§1.2). For a rectangular single-story slab-on-grade ADU, the linework derives from the existing footprint (perimeter footing offset from exterior_wall_thickness), plus config-driven anchor-bolt/hold-down callouts, footing/slab schedule, detail-cut placeholders, and a foundation-notes block (concrete 2,500 psi, vapor retarder as a jurisdiction parameter defaulting to 10-mil per 2022 CRC R506.2.3). §2.2 is effectively the sheet spec.
  2. Roof framing plan sheet (S2) — highest appeal, moderate cost. Build it. Same checklist/government-set evidence; the schema's Roof (type/ridge_axis/slope/overhang) already determines rafter direction for the drawn gable case. Needs new config fields (rafter size/spacing/species-grade, ridge member, connector callouts) rendered as layout arrows + callouts + notes per §2.3. Support both stick-framed (rafter + ceiling-joist callouts) and trussed (layout + "deferred submittal, stamped truss package" note) variants — government sets show truss layouts on A5 with S2 framing.
  3. Structural general-notes sheet (SN.1/S0.00) — medium appeal, very low cost. Same machinery as the existing general-notes sheet; makes S1/S2 read as a credible structural package (every city set carries one, §3.2). Include the LA WFPP compliance note option (§2.4).
  4. Code-compliance table as a sheet — medium-high appeal, low cost, distinctive. Requirement vs. provided vs. PASS with CRC citations (egress, ceiling height, smoke/CO, attic vent 1/150). Seen only in egress-window-permit-sketch; no competitor does it; CodeFrame already computes room areas and egress callouts.
  5. Electrical plan (A2) — medium appeal, moderate cost. In every government set as its own sheet (or combined, per Sacramento). Fixture/outlet symbols from the existing fixtures machinery; defer detailed circuiting.
  6. Braced-wall/shear-wall plan — high appeal, high cost. Defer, but leave hooks. Checkers expect hold-downs on S1 keyed to a braced-wall schedule (§2.2 item 5, §2.3 companion); full R602.10 bracing-length math is a large feature. V1: accept explicit hold-down locations in the config and emit the schedule skeleton.
  7. Material takeoffs/cost estimates, IFC export, interactive 3D embeds — low priority. Nice showcase garnish (Scaffold, WikiHouse, §1.3) but not what plan checkers or the pilot gate need.
  8. Title 24 / CALGreen sheets — do not build. Energy compliance comes from consultant-generated documents (Sacramento ships alternate EN sheets per HVAC choice); at most reserve sheet numbers in the index.

Which examples would make compelling showcases

  • Model the flagship example on the LA/SD County 10-sheet skeleton (cover+site template, A1–A6, S1–S2, CS-1) — the leanest officially-approved sheet list (§3.2). With S1/S2 added, CodeFrame's output maps 1:1 onto a government-approved set; that comparison ("same sheet index as LA County Standard Plan A") is the single most persuasive artifact for a CA drafter.
  • Ship 2–3 named example configs mirroring the government catalogs: a ~400 sf studio (cf. Sacramento Studio 367 sf, HEART 400 sf), a ~750 sf 1BR (San Jose's <750 sf no-impact-fee threshold), and an ~800–1,000 sf 2BR (LA County Plan C is 800 sf) — with memorable names, following the persona/tree-name pattern (§3.3).
  • README: hero image = one full title-blocked PDF sheet; input→output pair (20-line config → 10-sheet set contact sheet); GIF of python -m codeframe generate producing the set; a committed downloadable sample DXF+PDF+STEP set (§1 lessons; Chief Architect samples pattern).
  • Lead with task-level numbers and the honesty line: "a plan-check-shaped 10-sheet skeleton in N seconds — approximately the same '85% complete' the counties themselves publish, you finish and stamp." The government programs' own "approximately 85% complete" language (§3.1) is external validation of the skeleton pitch; quantified time claims should be per-sheet, AutoCAD-study style (§4).
  • Longer-term hook: a parcel-keyed instant demo (Symbium/Villa pattern, §4) — out of v1 scope but the strongest ADU-specific acquisition device observed.

Two corrections to internalize before building S1/S2

  • Anchor bolt max spacing is 6 ft o.c. (CRC R403.1.6) — 7" is the embedment depth, not spacing.
  • The 2022 CRC vapor retarder is 10-mil ASTM E1745 Class A (R506.2.3), but LADBS still writes 6-mil and Redding amends to 15-mil — make it a jurisdiction parameter with a 10-mil default.

Reference copies of the downloaded government plan sets (LA County Plans A/C, SD County Plan F, LADBS YOU-ADU, Sacramento Studio) were kept in the session scratchpad, not committed.