Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

And supposedly these 1.84 little holes are already oversized......

There actually was – for interior doors – the standard size 88.5 x 188.5, but I haven’t seen that for about thirty years. In the wild nowadays usually 201, but for patio doors often more. There it’s 213.5 / 220 / 226 about equally often (without me having counted). Although: unfortunately it varies what the dimension refers to. 226 raw – 16 floor build-up is also just 210.

DIN18101 at least recognizes the dimension we have.

I'm curious to see what standard the expert will now pull out of the hat to justify a professionally incorrect planning & execution.

Here is the relevant passage from the contract.

I based it on the clear height. That was probably simply wrong. I should have noticed it too, as I have the increased interior door height stated directly below...... really hair-pulling!!

At least DIN18101 knows the dimension we have here.

However, it seems to me - without having specifically found a more appropriate one at the moment - to be for interior doors. I am not aware of any building regulation regarding the clear passage dimension. Thanks to my average height, I have never had to measure doors, but I would consider the rough construction dimension of 188.5 to be appropriate for the time when an 80th birthday still triggered the appearance of the mayor.

I also find the contract text ambiguous. You write "hereby" (through the 201cm?) a 15cm step arises.

Why does the step arise due to a specific door height?

For the interior doors below, there is furthermore an explicit reference to the raw construction height, which is missing for the terrace doors.

Do you find the contract text precise?

The 15cm step is not coincidentally the missing delta in the headroom?

Then the door would be correct in its dimensions, it just sits too low because a landing is agreed upon.
You also entered a sill height of 12.5 for the window in the next room instead of 0, even though the dimensions are identical to the door and the elevations show that the top edge of all glazing on the floor is the same.

There is something wrong somewhere?!

The 15cm step is not randomly the now missing delta in the clearance height?

I have an appointment there at 9 o'clock and will show up armed with a tape measure.

The clearance height of the door was 184cm. I think, with the upper and lower frame, you would already reach 201cm, so that the additional 15cm should be visible. But I could be mistaken.

The parapet height only applies to windows, not doors. But the crucial point will be whether the door frames start exactly where the window frame starts. That should be at 12.5cm.

You are probably right and something doesn't fit there.

Nevertheless, the much bigger challenge is to assess whether, by approving the planning, I assume full responsibility for this mess or whether it is so negligent or actually violates regulations that one can still oppose it.

They say they talked to me about how it will be executed; yes! But they didn't say whether I was aware that, as a 189cm person, I have only a 184cm clearance. As I understand it, they include the threshold and see absolutely no problem. They also don't understand the fuss.