First along the short side of the house

The east/west orientation is not ideal.

This is simply wrong as a blanket statement. Often, only the total yield per kWp is focused on. However, the performance curve plays a significant role in practice. With an east-west system, you have a longer period of your own energy yield and a lower peak load. With the same kWp capacity, you would have about 10-15% more total yield on a south-facing roof with the same angle than on an east/west roof. If someone belongs to the group of people who get up in the morning and go to bed in the evening, the east/west system helps increase the self-consumption rate (economic efficiency factor!) through the longer time window of power generation without using a battery. If you also practically consider that more square meters are available on two used roof halves than on one, it is also clear that the "performance loss" in absolute terms can easily be compensated by a few more modules. Those who calculate precisely and take into account the typical daily consumption curve of a family often come to a shorter payback period with an east-west system. Build the house as it suits you best from the inside out. The photovoltaic orientation is a secondary factor here.

What is the exact roof pitch specification? My inquiry is still unanswered, where you suspect a structural complication from.

What is the exact roof pitch specification? My inquiry is still unanswered, where you suspect a static complication.

We have no exact specification, we build according to §34. Currently, due to the attic, with 45 degrees. The suspicion comes from a layperson and the fact that the house construction company could not deny additional static efforts.

With 45° pitch and a knee wall height of 1.0 m, 2.3 m height is reached after 1.3 m – with a house depth of 10 m, this is over a distance of 7.4 m. In a two-thirds federal state, this alone means the fully glazed strip is already broken, and in a three-quarters federal state, there is practically no reserve left to install dormers aka "Gauben". The static "additional effort" consists of longer rafters on the eaves side compared to the long side (but a central purlin per roof side would also be advisable here in the opposite direction). From "no dormer" it also follows that one cannot provide such for more headroom on the staircase. The staircase therefore almost inevitably ends up in the area where the best windowing opportunity exists in the gable. Check alternatives with 40°, 38°, or even 35° and a higher knee wall (which I would not increase significantly beyond 1.4 m, however). With 45° roof "pitch" – I would almost call it "roof steepness" here – the maximum efficiency for photovoltaics would anyway be clearly abandoned. Functional floor plan patterns here will resemble the classic terraced house / semi-detached house; the "extra meter" (8 instead of 7 or 6 m) mainly spreads out the guest WC / cloakroom area, and the staircase can be winded here instead of only having entry and exit bends or even have a landing thanks to the eighth meter. The entrance will be located on the short side. We are talking here in total about just under 100 to 110 sqm; I see a guest or third children's room here as almost excluded. Purely in terms of area (observe the 11% basement rule!) utility rooms/HAR and storage rooms are very grateful for a basement here.

The static "extra effort" consists of (den) compared to the long side as the eaves side in longer rafters

Correction: "(den)" instead of two "der".

The static "additional effort" consists of rafters that are longer on the eaves side compared to the long side

Correction correction: nice that you are allowed to use smileys again, but the correction timeout could also gladly be raised back to the old ten minutes :-(