Change of optics to avoid defects

I am completely at a loss as to what problem is supposed to be shown there.

I believe the picture is the solution with the ETICS. The OP wanted to show how it would look then.

Our tendency strongly leans towards option 4

I also find option 4 the best.

I believe the picture is the solution with the ETICS. The OP wanted to show how it would look then.

You mean a third-party image just to show us what an attic is? What would really be needed here to help is much more the following: pictures of the problem area (please in context, no gigapixel zoom on the focal point and nothing else), and (preferably hand-drawn) sketches of the states "as-is," "proposal," and "alternative proposal."

It was about the description of the intended solution to apply an additional layer of [WDVS] to cover the potential cracks. For example, I had thought that the [WDVS] would be installed flush, so I found the picture helpful for explanation, even though it does not depict the problem, which still has to show itself. Honestly, however, I would not agree to any of the options involving additional costs if this had not already been contractually agreed upon beforehand. Problems must remain where they belong, and in this case, that is with the [GÜ]. That he wants to quite elegantly shift this into the area of own services, I honestly find pretty cheeky.

I would like to help, but I don’t understand the entire problem: the crop of the image conceals (due to which secrets anyway?) more than it shows, is difficult to assess in scale and perspective and does not reveal any problem area, nor is it explained. The little bit that can be seen looks flawless. The text mentions plaster that is still to follow – however, the image gives the impression of a fully finished top coat plaster. I am completely clueless as to what problem is supposed to be shown there.

I think the picture is the solution with the ETICS. The OP wanted to show how it would then look.

many thanks for explaining.
We are building with a general contractor and the exterior plaster is coming up soon. The GC builds about 5 - 10 houses per year and has had the problem for about 5 years now (since they build monolithically and no longer with ETICS) that cracks form in the area of the parapet on flat roof buildings. The GC refuses the planned execution because it obviously leads to problems and wants to take measures against it in advance, which I can understand. All measures already taken with expert support have so far not been successful, which is why this variant with 4 cm ETICS is now being pursued. For one building (the example picture) this has already been implemented this way. We don’t like that, however, and are looking for other solutions together. The current favorite is first base coat plaster and then top coat plaster after 1 - 3 years.
, clear now?

It was about the description of the proposed solution to apply an additional layer of ETICS to cover the potential cracks. For example, I would have assumed that the ETICS is set flush, so I found the picture helpful for explanation, even though it does not show the problem, which still has to appear.
Honestly, I wouldn’t agree to any of the variants with additional cost if that was contractually agreed beforehand. Problems have to remain where they belong, and that is with the GC in this case. That he wants to shift this elegantly into the area of the owner’s performance, I honestly find quite cheeky.

Thank you for your response and also your addition for . I think it is in everyone’s interest to try to prevent the defect from occurring in the first place and therefore to look for solutions. The offer from the GC without extra costs to us would be the ETICS thing, which we do not want. That was exactly my original question. Can the GC impose this on us or rather: can he impose a clause on us in which we are liable for a possible defect because he offers us an option that allegedly prevents the defect but that we do not want. I think without knowing the contract in detail this is difficult to answer. As a layman, I have not been able to find a general clause in the contract in this regard so far. However, it must also be said that nowhere in the contract is it specified in detail how the parapet is executed. It only says: wall thickness, height and material at the contractor’s discretion
Similarly the plaster...

Thank you all for your support :)

I especially don’t understand one thing here: why don’t you simply explain what this is about with pictures. Normally I am a very quick checker, but then the OPs also contribute to this, which you haven’t done here (pictures of your problem, both as photos and as drawings or sketches) are completely missing – counterproductive, you even show (without explanation that it is such) a picture of something completely different from your construction site: I’ve long known what to imagine under one parapet, and I can also imagine a step in a plastered surface. But apart from the fact that this will not be 4 cm here: unfortunately there is a lack of illustration on how we should imagine your parapet here.

Above the upper floor exterior wall there is supposed to be a ceiling here, which even in the case of a monolithically executed wall – that is, the wall itself without insulation board on it – needs an insulation strip, and cracks in the plaster are now feared at that junction. The contractor has known this from the experience of flat roof connections with walls without ETICS for five years. At this point I feel sorry for you choosing a contractor who on the one hand has not yet found a solution for a problem known for five years, but on the other hand does not reject the order for a building with a flat roof without ETICS.

But whether with a problem solution or not: he must have at least some idea of the connections of the components (firstly at all and secondly of his proposed solutions A, B, C etc.) and, unlike the lay client, also be able to draw them (and already have drawn them – because this is surely not meant to seriously be a decision made on site by the foreman in the course of events!).

What I partly begin to understand despite your borderline rude laziness to illustrate little by little is that at least unsuitable solutions are being sought. One of these is supposed to be to apply an additional insulation strip overlapping the ceiling-wall boundary line on the insulation strip of the ceiling (note: the ceiling alone does not make a parapet any more than a swallow makes a summer – so there is still a glaring lack of a depiction of how the whole parapet is supposed to be "built" here!). However, how this is to be elastically separated and float-mounted has so far been left unmentioned. That way I can’t help!

The issue was the description of the intended solution to apply an additional layer of ETICS in order to cover potential cracks.

With a rigid paneling of the problem area you logically cannot solve an elasticity problem. Even a former butcher turned construction contractor should realize that beforehand and probably only someone who was previously a realtor wouldn’t.

I would have thought, for example, that the ETICS would be installed flush,

That would have meant in this case to reduce the ceiling support by the thickness of the ETICS. At this point I raise my assessment from “realtor” to “mayor of ” ;-)

Just to ask stupidly: what does the plaster do in the vicinity of the insulation strips of the ground floor ceiling in the houses built by this contractor?