01 · Plan & basis
Inspect four issues on a public schematic. The selected Python record supplies the queue and wait result. Edit the project wait and queue-area assumptions with an explicit source.
AEROPLANNER / ASSURE / Client worked review
From finding to evidence.
A capacity result is one part of a design decision. Review a terminal plan through operations, passenger experience, universal access and wayfinding — and show what still prevents the package progressing.
Synthetic departure case · Four declared review lenses · Local evidence workflow
Save your current project first. In AeroPlanner, use Save project file, then Open project file to load this example. It contains the existing 1,000-passenger departure model and one issued bunched-peak record. Select Design review · ASSURE, then Start design review.
What prevents the design progressing?
02 · Findings & lenses
Review the accountable owner, required evidence and current finding status. Deferring a critical issue does not close it. Record review notes for all four declared lenses.
03 · Decision pack
Issue a historical review pack with the gate reasons, numerical basis, evidence gaps and responsibilities. Download the HTML report and retain the project file.
Compare three review states
- Baseline: four security lanes; the bunched peak produces 200 queued passengers and a 12-minute interval-end wait. At the illustrative 1.2 m² per passenger, 240 m² is required against 150 m² provided. Issue a HOLD pack.
- Capacity intervention: change SEC to six lanes in Processors and confirm the synthetic change. In Records, rerun affected scenarios. Return to ASSURE and rebase on the new record. Security queue becomes zero in this example. Evidence for circulation, assisted routes and signage remains unresolved.
- Reviewed demonstration: record explicitly labelled synthetic closure notes and reviewer names for each finding. Review all four lenses and issue a READY FOR REVIEW pack. Compare it with the baseline; neither pack is a professional approval.
Rebasing or changing criteria reopens findings and coverage. Previously issued packs stay unchanged. Any later change to the terminal model makes the active review stale until it is rebased.
Where evidence matters
Closing a numerical finding is blocked while its criterion remains exceeded. Changing an area assumption does not prove the physical plan contains that area. The architect must provide measured queue geometry and the operator must verify service rates. Step-free routes and signage require specialist review notes independent of queue performance.
This curated case uses a synthetic diagram, not private airport drawings. It does not perform automatic drawing analysis. Fire strategy, security certification, baggage, structure and other disciplines are excluded from the declared four-lens review. Browser role selection and review history are local demonstration features, not authenticated sign-off or a tamper-proof approval service.
Queue model assumptions and worked calculations → · AEROPLANNER capabilities →