There remains question no. 2 - Is there a "winner" here
What about durability, in the sense of "leaving something behind for the grandchildren" (if there ever should be any)?
Or is the conscious omission of the answer to be understood as follows:
Durability, insulation, and soundproofing are so similar in both materials that the choice of the desired stone/brick should not decide the choice of provider, meaning you shouldn’t limit yourself when choosing the builder just because one prefers building with KS instead of brick or vice versa?
I did deliberately skip that question - right now, about 40 km diagonally across, various houses have sunk and been washed away before they could be inherited - so you don’t need to worry about eight hundred years with one stone versus nine hundred with the other without a flood disaster - half-timbered houses often stand for twelve hundred years.
You definitely cannot build with KS without external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS) due to the energy saving ordinance, so at this point we’re back to the crucial question of how you want to handle the religion. Within the monolithic spectrum, I consider the world manageable. Only with the unfilled porous bricks do I least like to disagree with the "hate preachers" :)
I already take away not being so stubborn, especially when you actually have no clue yourself!
You can score unforgettable own goals if you pressure the builder to deal with an unfamiliar stone. Likewise, I would never try to convert a builder, neither away from ETICS nor towards it. The same applies to interior walls between masonry and lightweight construction.
Ceterum censeo, castle wall thicknesses are foolishness. Anyone who sees wall construction as a simple rule of three, assuming everything can be monolithic, and then wants ninety-three-centimeter concrete walls after the oracle pronouncement of their U-value calculator, in my opinion, has missed more than one shot.