Floor plan single-family house approx. 158 sqm with children's bedroom in the attic

So .. I see a few points differently, but I also do not find it satisfactory:

[*]Use of courtyard .. for me that would include the kitchen on the left side of the plan and the living room on the right side of the plan
[*]Child 1 (the 8 sqm) is supposed to become an office ... but I would combine that with the guest room on the ground floor, because having a separate playroom combined with the guest room there, I don't think it will have the desired effect,
[*]Then a utility room can be sensibly accommodated on the upper floor and there will be one less room
[*]The second levels in children's rooms 2 and 3 are quite popular with children from the age of 6 or 7. My niece also had such a room. At preschool age the rooms are big enough that a bed can initially be placed downstairs. What I notice, however, is that in the places where space-saving stairs to the respective "bed level" are planned, there is no standing height when coming up. So at least the skylights should be adjusted accordingly. And in addition it must absolutely be checked whether the roof pitch needs to be flatter, because in my opinion the maximum ridge height has been exceeded. And if it does have to become flatter, then it is more of a crawl space there under the roof and maybe no longer so desirable. At my niece's at least there was standing height over a width of a good 2 m and a large gable window integrated. She also liked to chill there with her friends. But these areas here probably invite less to that
[*]I do not like the rather narrow corridor downstairs and upstairs at all
[*]The technical room with the planned things (connections, ventilation?, heating components) should be planned through to see if it is practical like this
[*]Roofing over garage - entrance door - for what purpose?

Thank you again for your comments!

Quick info: Yes, the garage is located in the west, I unfortunately made a mistake while writing.

I will discuss how this is solved structurally at the next appointment with the architect and ask if he has already made considerations about this.

What do you mean by the maximum ridge height, according to the development plan it is:
FHmax: 745.30; THmax: 742.15
In the design plan it is:
Ridge: 744.9; Eaves: 742.15
Or am I making a thinking error? Or do you mean if I change the roof slope, I will exceed the ridge height?

I find it difficult to draw, especially designing the ground floor and the upper floor so that everything works well. I still tried and implemented your suggestions as well as possible. I have not drawn in the windows yet.

What I really don't like is the bathroom on the upper floor. Does anyone perhaps have an idea or even a sketch for it?

What bothers me is that the street lamp is only 5.6 m away from the property boundary, so the driveway is somewhat narrow or is this okay?
Would you have it relocated?

What else can I optimize or has my optimization made things worse?

Short info: Yes, the garage is located in the west,

. . And with a street lamp. And because of the lamp, the garage had a distance to the neighbor. That also explains the distance.

What bothers me is that the street lamp is only 5.6m away from the property boundary, so the driveway is somewhat narrow or does it fit?

You should let go of the idea that a driveway has to be as wide as the garage. Because you can also use the steering wheel on your own property. Concerning the length of the driveway, this should not be a problem.

Would you have it relocated?

Nevertheless, I would actually apply for a relocation so that the garage can be built on the boundary.

What else can I optimize or did my optimization make things worse?

Well, first of all, if I were you, I would consider whether it has to be a straight staircase. Because firstly, you don’t gain anything from the look a straight staircase radiates, not only because of the narrow hallway but also because of the cupboards; secondly, it takes up your hallway. A storage room can be well accommodated under a winding staircase. I would “take the staircase out” of the hallway because of the space. It won’t get better if you still draw white boxes “there at the entrance” that have nothing to do with wardrobes. And yet you have to enter the house in single file without even any space to take off your jacket.
The purpose of coming home, taking off outdoor clothing, or getting ready to go out is not there.
Then I would consider how one’s daily routine is, how this courtyard is used, how the sun terrace is used.
Because I rather see the courtyard as a dining terrace and would kill two birds with one stone regarding kitchen location, namely also a short path from the entrance to the kitchen. Perhaps it also often helps to part with a corner in the south for a better entrance and thus a better developed floor plan.
Upstairs, the children's rooms are clearly better, so one can also have a bed downstairs. But be aware that even in the office you will only have 1.20/1.40m of headroom at the stairs. That means: combined with this staircase and a bent posture, you could stumble. So it is not exactly the optimal storage space.
Otherwise, I can only advise you to let the architect work on it again. Keep in mind that his figures are raw construction dimensions. So something will still be added on the wall, namely plaster and tiles. At the staircase, the railing. That can add 10cm with holders or posts.

It seems to me that a city villa floor plan has been slimmed down so much that it "just barely fits" in terms of dimensions. But this "just barely fits" is not, in my opinion, what people want to have, live in, or build nowadays. One should keep that in mind.
These corridors, as were still common in old houses, where a cellar entrance was separated from the hallway under the stairs, leaving a narrow corridor, no longer reflect life in the 3rd millennium.
"Narrow" houses are arranged differently. The lower limit is a standard terraced house, you can imagine: the entrance side, i.e. the short wall as usable area, then use the entire width for living space.
There is no fixed standard as to when rooms can be arranged differently.
I actually like narrow houses very much. But you also have to free yourself from the city villa floor plan for that.

Honestly, I also only now see that the all-purpose room is only 3.63 RBM. In addition, there is not even space for a TV stand. Overall, that is unsatisfactory. Only the kitchen area has a nice floor space. However, it could also be smaller if one did without this (as it was once nicely put) unnecessarily blown-up aircraft carrier. In my opinion, the island is too much for an all-purpose room that is just under 40 sqm. But I think I already said that in another post of mine, that the kitchen is planned too large and impractically.
On the other hand, there are no other storage options, no closet, sideboard, dresser, or anything a family needs. If you define it more precisely, there is hardly any space on the ground floor.

It seems to me that a city villa floor plan has been slimmed down so much that it "just barely fits" in terms of dimensions.

That would explain the criticized head heights, because putting a gable roof cap on a single-family villa is either regularly not possible or is bound to be a fatal operation.

... on average the first height is recorded as 8 m... ah, but I just understand, okay, I had seen it as a typo in the checklist that it said 744.9 and thought 7.44, well then okay, but you still see the really low standing height in the gallery area.