Are performance phases 1-3 with the architect and lump sum offer somehow disadvantageous?

I would never pay HOAI moon prices for a single-family house. So far, I have paid 3.5 gross for the building permit with two different architects. Structural analysis 1.8k gross. Anyone who pays HOAI has only themselves to blame.

What fits with what you are planning?

At the latest from performance phase 4 onwards, do the whole package with the same person and do not separate it from this point on.

Definitely take a break after performance phase 2. This break is important to get used to the fact - which many self-builders first have to practice - not constantly jumping back into the evidence gathering in the middle of the plea.

I am a bit uncertain about that right now. The temporal break in terms of a thinking pause is clear. I have only currently assumed that we go up to performance phase 3 and then look at the market to see if building makes sense (not financially, but with regard to material availability). If I now only commission up to performance phase 2, I would feel somehow awkward, if everything fits and the market is still as tense, to add performance phase 3 separately afterwards. Whether it then continues with a general contractor or freely would primarily have nothing to do with sympathy.

So far I have paid 3.5 gross for the building application to two different architects.

And what exactly did he do for that price? Everything that an architect does comprehensively without special preliminary services from the builders up to performance phase 4? The architect is also not a first-degree relative of yours or anything?

At the latest from service phase 4 onwards, do the whole package with the same person and do not separate it from this point.
[...] to add service phase 3 separately afterwards. Whether it then continues with a general contractor or freely would primarily have nothing to do with sympathy.

If you want to stay with the first architect, you stay with him up to and including service phase 8. If the chemistry is not right, it is best to change already after service phase 2, because service phase 3 should be done by the same person who also carries on at least until service phase 5 (3-4-5 build continuously on each other). With the result after service phase 5, you can then ask yourself the second crucial question: direct award to a general contractor (as a first-time builder please N.E.V.E.R. self-award contracts!) or continue with the architect with module C (service phases 6 to 8).

I am a bit uncertain here. The temporal pause as a thinking pause is clear so far. I have currently assumed that we go up to service phase 3 and then look at the market to see whether building makes sense (not financially, but with regard to the material situation). If I only commission up to service phase 2 now, I would somehow feel awkward, if everything fits and the market is still so tense, to add service phase 3 separately afterwards.

If you want to stick to the plan to initially award service phases 1 to 3, then service phase 3 would only be added as the second part of the first commissioning module, but from the outset part of the scope of the first order module. It would be "added separately" only in time. A first (or only) commissioning module to the freelance architect only makes sense if you are sure that you want to award to a “ready-to-move-in” general contractor, because only then is this phase package “service phases 1 to 3” a smart choice. A cut after service phase 3 only makes sense if building with a “ready-to-move-in” general contractor.

I would—not as myself (because then: always service phases 1 to 8 according to my module system, recommendation see post #2), but as a client advised by me—always proceed as follows:

1. Commission the architect with "module A" (service phases 1 and 2 always en bloc because not sensibly separable);
2. Resting phase with questioning the result of module A whether you want to accept and maintain it with the only reasonable answers "yes" or "no" and whether you want to continue with this architect—the pause must not end "undecided";
3. Requests to possible general contractors of all types based on the preliminary design (accurate enough for a first rough selection);
4. Discussion of the request feedback results with the architect, decision on the type of construction "masonry or timber"—there is no "don’t know"!
5. Reflection on the principle questions, a) whether to choose from a type house catalog or pursue an individual design and b) whether it should be a site-built or prefab house;
6. Commissioning the architect accordingly with only service phase 3 or with the complete "module B" ...

At the latest from performance phase 4 onwards, do the whole package with the same person and no longer separate from this point.

I am currently a bit uncertain about this. The temporal break as a kind of thinking pause is clear. I just assumed that we would go up to performance phase 3 and then look at the market to see if construction makes sense (not financially, but regarding the material situation). If I now only commission up to performance phase 2, I would somehow feel awkward, if everything fits and the market is still as tense, to subsequently add performance phase 3 individually. Whether it continues with a general contractor or freely after that would primarily have nothing to do with sympathy.

And what exactly has he done for this course? Everything that an architect fully does without any special preliminary work by the clients up to performance phase 4? The architect is also not related to you in the first degree or anything?

Performance phases 1 to 4

Not related and not in-laws.
Had asked 10 architects and took the one with the best price-performance ratio. The second project was even an 8-family house for 3.5k.

I contacted 10 architects and took the one with the best price-performance ratio. The second construction project was even an 8-family house for 3.5k.

Good gracious. Did you contact the architects via myH***er, or where do you find someone who designs an eight-family house for intern pocket money (and what do you even expect from someone like that)?

Reverse question: Why should I pay more when I can obviously get the corresponding service on the market for less money?