Have you understood your construction service description?

It's not only what is written inside that counts, but especially what is NOT written inside,

I completely agree with you!

But:

I translate: Only visually terrible surface-mounted thermostats are installed. But you only know that after having read in another service description "Temperature control via flush-mounted individual room thermostats".

We are/You are already in the category "mid- to high-priced" And that will not be well received by the thrifty TE.

1. Surface-mounted thermostats are not terrible
2. A perfectly normal installation (under a light switch), which you don't have to get worked up about as it could be of poor quality or even unnecessary

Before giving examples here, one should be a bit empathetic and read that this is not going to be a €500,000 house, but rather a €250,000-350,000 house.

but the comparison clearly shows the subtleties that matter in the construction service description, regardless of the price segment you are in.

I fell for it myself: in our draft plan, which was also part of the contract calculation: 2 roof windows in the stairwell - drawn with dashed lines. It was logical to me, as it is one level above the floor area.
This led to a supplementary claim because according to the construction service description, last page, second to last paragraph (general notes), dashed elements are optional and must be paid for separately. Well.
We then met halfway at 50:50 and later one of the two windows was removed without replacement.

On-Topic: So far, I have received about 5 different construction performance descriptions. It's a pity that there is no standard template and that they all differ greatly in form and content. That makes comparison difficult. However, they were mostly easy to understand for laypeople.

Off-Topic: Let's assume you were offered a house that is currently being built and is about 75% finished. Open items include crucial things like bathrooms, interior doors, tiles, where you can and want to still make decisions.

However, despite the house type apparently having been built multiple times already, there is no construction performance description available upon request. Even after the inquiry about the "construction contract or confirmed cost breakdown of the planned total investment broken down by trades" was forwarded by the bank for financing, you only receive a casual "A cost breakdown is not available." Google returns nothing for the construction company. Neither positive nor negative reviews can be found. Would you buy under these circumstances?

To my knowledge, large construction companies are quite transparent with the performance description. Even a small local provider had such a document. I am fairly sure that this is ultimately the decisive document that states what we can expect and what not. That should also be attached to the sales contract. Do banks generally accept financing without a detailed document that precisely describes the house?

By the way: The exposé stated: "Daylight bathroom with high-quality equipment." When asked, we were not given a bathroom series or similar, but only a budget at the major wholesaler with bathroom showroom of just under 1000€ for guest WC and main bathroom. That's practically nothing, right?!

However, although the house type has apparently been built several times, there is no construction performance description available on request. Even after the inquiry for a "construction contract or confirmed cost breakdown of the planned total investment broken down by trades" was forwarded by the bank for financing, you only get a curt "A cost breakdown is not available." Would you buy under these circumstances?

Generally yes. Because I can imagine that the provider usually sells the cabin after completion. Therefore, he usually does not need a construction performance description. That he still offers you the opportunity to have a say in certain things is just nice of him. We also had a viewing and the screed was freshly installed. There was no real construction performance description, but everything is roughly recorded via an "offer." Tiles/stairs/floor coverings/doors, etc.

To my knowledge, the major construction companies handle the performance description quite openly. Even a small local provider had such a document. I am quite assuming that this is ultimately the decisive document stating what we can expect and what not. It should also be attached to the purchase contract. Do banks generally accept financing at all without a detailed document that exactly describes the house?

My banks all wanted the construction performance description. To what extent it was read – no idea. But I rather think not much. I believe that if you come to a construction company that works a lot for private builders, then they also have such a document. But if they are construction companies that build the house for "themselves" and sell it afterwards, they don’t have such a thing.
We also had extremely different variants. Some were only about 2 pages long and simply thrown together. Others initially had around 30-40 pages notarized, which would then have been adjusted.

On-Topic: I have had about 5 different construction service descriptions so far. It's a pity that there is no uniform template and they all differ greatly in form and content. That makes comparison difficult. But they were mostly easy for laypeople to understand.

Congratulations - that's rare! - Five construction service descriptions and all understandable for laypeople, that's a lucky hit. Or could it be because they didn't hold back on what (too) little is included? A uniform construction service description is very simple: your architect makes it for you. It's called a "tender," and the clever thing is precisely that a uniform bill of quantities is just filled out by the bidders instead of each bidder simply bringing their own bill of quantities.

I fell for it myself: in the draft plan here with us, which was also part of the contract calculation: 2 roof windows in the stairwell - drawn with dashed lines.

This optional or provided by the builder or fig. with special equipment is of course annoying if you fall for it. At first, this can still happen or it takes quite an imagination to picture the depicted house as unfurnished.

However, it is probably the wrong approach here to point out to the thrifty TE that she has to be careful with a construction service description to only get the standard, e.g. the mentioned (terrible) surface-mounted thermostats, which here also actually represent terrible surface-mounted bathroom fittings like terrible concrete roof tiles like a terrible gas heating, possibly terrible whatever-else... You do realize that very often an equipment is declared as standard here, which actually already represents a very good one? Most built houses don’t have something like that? Just because such things are discussed here does not mean they are the normal standard?