The living space is approximately 8 m² smaller in the application drawings compared to the draft (GU).

However, the clause in the construction service description regarding the wall thicknesses or the energy standard is actually missing now.

Here you go:

Exterior walls – double-shell – facing brickwork:
(Special feature by arrangement)
The wall structure is:
• Inner shell made of aerated concrete, highly insulating, λ = 0.13 W/m² · K, d = 17.5 cm, with approx. 1.5 cm lime-cement plaster, protruding corners with corner protection strips
• 2 layers of high-quality core insulation WLG 035: thickness according to thermal protection verification.
• Outer shell: facing bricks VMz, price category: up to €800.00 ‰ incl. VAT free construction site, format: NF, d = 10 – 11.5 cm, laid with lime-cement mortar, raked out, cleaned and jointed with cement mortar, at the house corners with expansion joint silicone / not maintenance-free, window and door covers: "Grenadier" facing brick lintel cantilevered.
Alternatively: decorative brickwork in the facing shell is possible (special service according to written offer/order).
• Horizontal and vertical moisture barriers see base detail
• The base area must be protected against construction moisture before paving starts with a thick coating or dimpled membrane with fleece supplied by the builder. Our external sealing ends at approx. -0.20 m top edge finished floor, the rest by the builder in the course of paving
• Note: When choosing facing bricks with a rough-burnt surface, the joints can fill the rough surface with joint mortar. This is not a defect.
____________________________________

And here also from the contract regarding KSL. 1 piece of inner shell of the exterior masonry d = 17.5 cm, made of KSL stone, RDK 1.8, instead of aerated concrete, to be produced as an extra charge.

In my opinion, an extension must always go outward, if only because otherwise all other dimensions would no longer fit, such as stair rise, door widths, distances between walls, or even cabinet dimensions.

And if it is only done at considerable additional cost, he should please compensate by increasing the gable and knee wall by 6.5 cm. We would make it with the floor plan and the area. But my concern here is that we decided to sign the contract based on the floor plan, at the agreed price. We are also paying the additional 14,000 € for KfW 40 to properly equip the house. [ / ] And here still from the contract regarding KSL. 1 piece of the inner shell of the exterior masonry d = 17.5 cm, made of KSL stone, RDK 1.8, instead of aerated concrete, to be produced as a surcharge.

I will report in a week what came out of it. I doubt that a good agreement will be reached, but we shall see.

Outer shell: facing VMz, price class: up to €800.00 ‰ incl. VAT free construction site, format: NF, d = 10 – 11.5 cm, built with lime cement mortar, raked out, cleaned and jointed with cement mortar, at the house corners with expansion joint silicone / not maintenance-free,

If the static calculation has already been done, this can be the better way (to maintain the dimensions of the ceiling panels).

Why do you shy away from the simple (reverse) change of the wall starter?

Where does the doubt come from, against the background of the transverse gable change in your favor?

If the facing brick has the NF format, d is not "10 - 11.5 cm" but "11.5 cm".

Just a different question: does anyone have an idea why the right side of the garage wall is thicker than the left? On the left, there are 11.5 cm sand-lime bricks, and on the right, it should also be 11.5 cm including 11.5 cm clinker bricks? Something doesn’t add up again.