The design review is reopening a decision you already made.
The drawing looks cleaner. Then someone asks how the maintenance team is supposed to reach the equipment. You answered that question two reviews ago.
Your designers want to make the workspace better for the people using it. They need to understand the earlier decisions so they can spend the next review on useful alternatives.
Korium in this storyMemory + WorkflowsAn illustrative story, not a customer result. No customer is depicted.
Follow the work01What keeps happening
The constraint disappears between the meeting and the next drawing.
You manage the design of a workspace renovation. In a review with the facilities team, the designers agree to keep an area beside the equipment clear for maintenance access.
A new team member reviews the layout with an AI assistant. They can see the open space but not the discussion behind it. Their revised option adds storage there.
The facilities lead catches the problem at the next review. The team pulls up old notes, re-explains the access need and redraws an option that should have been ruled out earlier.
- Facilities explains the access need
- Drawing keeps the space clear
- New option fills the space
- Review repeats the old decision
02Where we would start
We’d keep the design reason with the proposed change.
We’d follow a disputed decision from the review notes into the drawing and the next change request. Which constraint was agreed, who agreed to it and which drawing revision does it apply to?
We would not turn every earlier comment into a permanent rule. The useful record separates a confirmed requirement from an option someone merely discussed.
03What Korium would keep
Save the agreement that the drawing cannot explain on its own.
A connected assistant could save a note like this and link it to the relevant review and drawing:
“Keep the agreed area beside the equipment clear for maintenance access. The facilities team rejected storage in that area because it would obstruct the access they need. Any option affecting it needs a new review with Facilities.”
Source: The approved design-review notes and the drawing revision they refer to.
04The next person, the next task
The next design option accounts for the maintenance access.
Before proposing a revision, the designer’s assistant searches the project decisions. It can find why the space was left clear and identify the source for the designer to verify.
Instead of presenting the old rejected option as a new idea, it can help the designer explore alternatives that respect the agreed requirement.
A plan based on the saved explanation
- Keep the agreed access area clear in the proposed option.
- Explain the constraint and cite the relevant review.
- Flag any request to change it for a new Facilities decision.
05Memory + Workflows
Which parts of Korium help here?
Memory explains why the space was left clear. A design-review workflow brings that decision into the next proposed change, before another review reopens it.
- MemoryKorium:mem
Keep the access requirement and the reason behind it.
Korium:mem keeps the Facilities agreement, the rejected storage option and the drawing revision the decision applies to. A new designer can find the explanation and check the source before proposing a different use of the space.
- WorkflowsKorium:workflows
Check affected decisions before the next option goes to review.
The workflow would have the assistant retrieve the project decisions and help the designer identify constraints affected by the proposal. The designer verifies the drawings, takes any changed access requirement to Facilities and saves the new agreement with its revision reference.
06What the team can do next
A review with room for a genuinely better idea.
If the equipment moves and the access requirement changes, save the new agreement with the updated drawing reference. Link it to the earlier decision so the old constraint is not silently applied to a different layout.
A new designer can see both the current requirement and how the team got there. The next review can focus on the new question instead of reconstructing the old one.
The designer can spend the next review comparing options for the rest of the space: where storage would help, how people move through it and what Facilities needs. A colleague joining the project can suggest something useful without having to attend every past review first.
How we would check whether it helped
- Look for fewer options rejected because they ignore settled requirements.
- Check whether proposed changes identify the decisions they affect.
- Ask whether new project members can explain the constraint and bring useful alternatives to review.
One problem. A useful place to start.
Bring the design decision that keeps coming back.
We’d trace one requirement through a review, a drawing and a proposed change. Then we’d make its reason available before the next option is prepared, so the review can be about improving the layout.