The construction method is pretty clear, almost exclusively stone is used here. [...], but there were so many reasons against wood (from resale value to the choice of construction companies) that it was quickly settled.
That sounds like "peace to prejudices and half-knowledge," followed by uninhibited empiricism for the specific project.
Almost all planners stated that they could plan with wood, but extremely rarely and only with awareness of the consequences for the construction. This was also left open at the beginning.
Whatever the "consequences for the construction" are supposed to be. I’ve experienced a lot with architects, just not (i.e. "almost never") a true "ambidextrous talent." Most are stone planners, the wood builders are mostly ideologically wood-centric. And then there is the current generation of "digital natives," for whom (not only) the wall construction is a black box. They blindly trust whatever the U-value calculator spits out, often with fantasy measurements, and usually quite weak in construction management ("after the approval stamp, the flood" or responsibility of mostly the general contractor). Most are not companions from the first idea to moving in; they leave this claim to colleagues from one and a half generations before them.
One can and should keep the construction method open until right at the edge between design phase 2 and design phase 3, and not a jot before or after. Design phase 3 should be started with a clarified construction method—however as a result, not due to neglecting an option.
We also defined the wall structure fairly early; this is a new development area where construction is already underway. We were able to exchange ideas with the builders and directly see who builds how, and most is with facing bricks and double-shell construction, only occasionally plaster and ETICS. In addition, almost 40% of all single-family houses in the town come from this planner; the companies here know him.
Fundamental and concrete (also regarding dimensions) wall structure are two different pairs of shoes, and I see you now practically fixed with the companies familiar to the planner. Which is a pity, even if one of them might be a real expert.
We don’t worry about that, just that most clients let the general contractors do everything themselves after design phase 4.
If the client goes to the general contractor without supervision, that is naturally the case; I see little hope for positive outliers there either. The "necessary architectural services" end with the approval stamp; only (if at all, probably today the rule, statics and heat demand calculation must be submitted later) formwork and reinforcement plans follow. The installers will already have drywall boards and silicone guns on their ammo belts; much will be shifted onto the executors. "Design phase 5 without design phase 5"—no, here I really don’t know whether I should keep laughing or praying. But you are probably of legal age. But no matter if you come to me or which colleague, none of us have immediate time just because some only come bleeding for preventive care. If the expert has to come with blue lights, it’s too late for any planning.
I also have the CAD files; there's nothing else in it except the plan. So it will require a lot of mental familiarization time for another planner, that’s clear.
That didn’t sound like that so far.
For me, high-quality work takes precedence over sloppy simplistic plans, and I predict that the level of elaboration and communication will not improve much in the next phase.
What are sloppy simplistic plans? – I see detailed plans from your planner with sloppiness way before the comma: positioning and division of tasks between connection and technical-room gadgetry remained dangerously diffuse not on the drawing but on the conceptual level. In the end, one’s heart must spontaneously drop to the floor because there’s no room next to the lung (which is only noticed during the contractor’s detailed planning). Take a look around …
almost 40% of all single-family houses in the town from this planner
… at how improvised it has been in their technical areas.