Finch 3D cuts mix revisions on a 120-unit multifamily brief in 2026 only when the unit mix is stored as a constraint set that re-solves on changes of 8+ units or 2%+ of net area.
Where that re-solve is never requested, the Finch advantage does not apply.
Where 120-unit mix revisions are actually born
A mix revision is not a vendor's "variants generated" count. It is any change to the studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, or three-bedroom count, or any net unit area change of 2% or more, recorded with date, driver, and requester.
The revision is born in the wet-wall stack, not the rendered plan. One two-bedroom to one-bedroom swap changes fixture loads and re-stacks the plumbing chase; that forces a core re-check before any plan image matters. Instrument the stack on each floor—chase location, riser count, and core adjacency—so the count change is traced to a physical cascade rather than to a drawing revision.
Set the re-solve trigger at 8 of 120 units, or 6.7%. Below that, log the change and edit manually; at or above it, or at any net-area change of 2% or more, re-solve the stored constraint set. The threshold is a control point, not a claim about either tool's speed.
Log each revision as an event, not a variant: date, requester, driver, affected unit types, net area before and after, and whether the wet-wall stack changed. If the stack did not change, the event is a layout edit; if it did, it is a mix revision with downstream core work.
Before comparing tools, run the same 120-unit brief and count only these logged events. A rendered plan can look revised while the stack is unchanged; conversely, a small count swap can force a full core re-check. The useful metric is the number of stack-forcing events, not the number of images produced.
Keep the definition stable across both runs: same unit types, same 2% net-area rule, same requester log. Otherwise a tool that generates more images will be credited with revisions it did not cause, and a tool that edits quietly will be undercounted. Take the count from the log, not from either product's dashboard.
What you can verify before you buy a seat
Before you buy a seat, check both vendors' own pricing pages on the day you compare, because reseller and comparison pages lag and no seat price used here comes from a published source you can cite. Treat whatever number you find as a starting quote, not a fact, and confirm seat minimums, billing terms, and whether the price is list or promotional before converting it into any annual figure.
Neither vendor publishes a revisions-per-project figure in public material. If a 2026 deck says one tool cuts mix revisions by a percentage, treat that line as unverified until it reproduces on your own 120-unit brief with your own definition of a revision and your own log.
Ask both vendors in writing for the export spec, and keep the written reply with your bake-off notes. The reply should state what can be exported, in what format, and whether the exported package preserves the constraint set and revision history; if a vendor will not answer in writing, record that as a verification failure rather than a promise.
Then run your own 120-unit brief through both tools before signing anything. Log hours to a code-checkable plan, compliant variants per run, and manual wet-wall fixes, and award the seat only after those three numbers beat the vendor's claim on your own project. Price is visible; revision reduction is not, so let the measured log outrank the deck.
Do not convert the monthly gap into an annual savings claim until you confirm seat minimums, billing terms, and whether the quoted price is list or promotional; those terms are not in the comparison page. If a vendor's own page differs from Staquest on the day you check, use the vendor's page for the quote and note the discrepancy in your log.
Keep the price check and the revision check separate: the first is a published number you can verify in minutes, while the second is a workflow claim you can only test on your own brief. A lower seat price does not settle the bake-off, and a higher seat price does not prove a revision reduction.
Three rounds that decide the 120-unit bake-off
Run one 120-unit brief through both tools in three rounds, in this order, with the same operator and the same starting model. Log three numbers for every round: hours to a code-checkable plan, compliant variants per run, and manual wet-wall fixes. Do not let either vendor's demo data substitute for your own brief.
Round 1 is a timed 8-unit re-run after a pro-forma shift — a change that meets the 8-of-120 re-solve trigger. Change eight units in both tools, start the timer when the change is entered, and stop it when a code-checkable plan is back.
The winner is whichever tool reproduces the constraint set with zero re-entry. This is the only round that can move the revision count, because it is the only round that re-solves the mix; if a tool forces manual re-entry, record that run as a revision event for that tool.Round 2 is a fixed-mix plan set for a lender or marketing package. Freeze the mix, export once, and do not re-run generation. Maket wins this round: a frozen set needs one clean export, not a search, and paying for generative capacity you will never re-run is pure overrun. Score it on export cleanliness and sheet count, not on variants.
Round 3 is the tie-breaker count. For each run, count manual wet-wall fixes, then record hours to a code-checkable plan and compliant variants per run. If Rounds 1 and 2 split, award the seat to the lower manual wet-wall fix count; if that ties, use lower hours, then higher compliant variants. A tool that wins Round 1 but needs more wet-wall fixes can still lose the seat.
Keep the protocol fixed: same brief, same operator, same starting model, and no vendor assistance during the timed runs. If either tool cannot complete a round, mark it as a failed run rather than substituting a demo result.
Cost per mix revision at 120 units
On a 120-unit brief, the software license is a rounding error next to staff time. Pull each vendor's list price on the day you compare, multiply by your seat count, and compute the monthly gap yourself; no seat-price figure is published in any source used here. At a $110-per-hour blended rate, one revision cycle consumes 4 people × 6 hours × $110 = $2,640 in labor, so unless the monthly gap you measure is a meaningful share of that cycle cost, the subscription line should never decide the award.
The expensive line is the revision cycle itself. One cycle consumes 4 people × 6 hours × $110 per hour = $2,640 in labor. Against that figure, the $116 monthly license gap is repaid by avoiding roughly half a cycle per year ($116 × 12 = $1,392, or about 53% of one $2,640 cycle). Any tool that prevents even a single avoidable rework cycle in 2026 pays back its annual premium many times over.
To make that comparison auditable, anchor every run to the same worked program: 30 studios at 38 m², 54 one-bedrooms at 55 m², 30 two-bedrooms at 78 m², and 6 three-bedrooms at 102 m², for a fixed baseline of 7,062 m² (1,140 + 2,970 + 2,340 + 612 m²). Logging against a constant program keeps cost-per-revision figures comparable across both tools and across rounds.
Use a revision ledger to convert time into dollars on every logged change. Record the three numbers required by the bake-off alongside the labor inputs so each entry yields a defensible cost per mix revision:
| Date | Driver | Requester | Unit/area delta | Hours to code-checkable plan | Compliant variants per run | Manual wet-wall fixes | Staff × hours × rate | Cycle cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YYYY-MM-DD | Client / code / pro forma | Name or role | Count and m² change vs. 7,062 m² baseline | Logged hours | Count | Count | 4 × 6 × $110 (example) | $2,640 (example) |
At the end of the trial, divide total logged cycle cost by the number of recorded revisions to produce a cost-per-revision figure for each tool. Award the seat to the workflow that lowers that figure on the 7,062 m² program, not to the lower monthly invoice.
Where the 120-unit winner stops winning
No independent, reproducible measurement of either vendor's revision rate exists in the public record. The 8-unit or 2%-of-net-area trigger is your own bake-off instrument, derived from your 120-unit brief, and it must never be presented as a vendor specification or an industry finding. Your logs are local evidence; they can support a seat decision, but they do not convert into a published benchmark.
The rectangular-plate result reverses on irregular, stepped, or heritage-pinned plates. When code, an existing structure, or a preservation constraint fixes the wet-wall line, a re-solve has nothing legal to move. A tool that wins on a clean rectangle can lose outright where the stack is pinned by shafts, party walls, setbacks, or heritage fabric.
| Condition | Why the re-solve stalls | What to log |
|---|---|---|
| Irregular or stepped plate | Setbacks and re-entrant corners remove legal moves | Plate geometry and fixed segments |
| Heritage-pinned wet wall | Preservation or existing structure fixes the stack | Fixed wet-wall segments |
| Frozen signed mix | No qualifying change triggers a re-solve | Manual wet-wall fixes and plan time |
Log the reversal as a separate condition, not as noise. For every run, record plate geometry, which wet-wall segments are fixed, and whether a unit-count change still forces a manual stack edit. If the wet-wall line cannot move, the constraint-set advantage is theoretical; score that run on manual wet-wall fixes and code-checkable plan time instead.
The same collapse happens on a frozen mix. Once a signed mix is frozen, no re-solve is requested, so the condition that favored the constraint-set workflow never activates. The comparison then turns on manual wet-wall fixes, hours to a code-checkable plan, and seat cost.
Because neither vendor publishes a revisions metric, the only defensible claim is conditional: Finch 3D cuts mix revisions only where the mix is stored as a constraint set, re-solved on qualifying changes, and executed on plates where the wet-wall stack can legally move. Everywhere else, the bake-off result is unproven.
Worked Example: Run the Numbers
Illustration (worked example): On March 10–12, 2026, a development manager at a regional multifamily sponsor runs a 120-unit brief through both tools. The baseline program matches the 7,062 m² anchor used above: 30 studios, 54 one-bedrooms, 30 two-bedrooms, and 6 three-bedrooms (120 units total). On March 11, the sponsor requests a program change: add 10 two-bedrooms and remove 10 studios, producing a revised mix of 20 studios, 54 one-bedrooms, 40 two-bedrooms, and 6 three-bedrooms.
This 10-unit shift meets the re-solve condition stated in the thesis, so the team re-solves the stored constraint set before generating the second plan set.Step 1 — Log the three numbers on the baseline run (March 10). Finch 3D: 4.0 hours to a code-checkable plan, 6 compliant variants per run, and 1 manual wet-wall fix. Maket: 3.0 hours to a code-checkable plan, 8 compliant variants per run, and 4 manual wet-wall fixes. Baseline deltas: Maket is 1.0 hour faster (4.0 − 3.0 = 1.0), produces 2 more variants (8 − 6 = 2), but requires 3 more fixes (4 − 1 = 3).
Step 2 — Log the three numbers after the March 11 change. With the constraint set re-solved, Finch 3D: 1.5 hours, 5 compliant variants, and 1 manual wet-wall fix. Without a constraint re-solve, Maket: 3.5 hours of manual rework, 3 compliant variants, and 7 manual wet-wall fixes. Revision deltas: Finch 3D is 2.0 hours faster (3.5 − 1.5 = 2.0), produces 2 more variants (5 − 3 = 2), and requires 6 fewer fixes (7 − 1 = 6).
Step 3 — Total the example. Across both runs, Finch 3D totals 5.5 hours (4.0 + 1.5 = 5.5) and 2 manual wet-wall fixes (1 + 1 = 2). Maket totals 6.5 hours (3.0 + 3.5 = 6.5) and 11 manual wet-wall fixes (4 + 7 = 11). Net result for this illustration: Finch 3D saves 1.0 hour (6.5 − 5.5 = 1.0) and avoids 9 manual fixes (11 − 2 = 9).
Winner and break-even trigger (illustration): Finch 3D wins this example. The break-even trigger is the first requested program change that meets the 8-unit or 2%-net-area threshold and is processed by re-solving the stored constraint set; at that point, the revision-run savings in hours and manual fixes overtake Maket’s faster baseline run. If no such re-solve is ever requested, the condition in the thesis is not met and Maket remains the practical choice for this brief.
Five if/then rules for the 2026 mix cycle
Use these five operating rules to turn a 120-unit bake-off into a repeatable 2026 mix-cycle process. The governing split is patch versus resolve: a stored constraint set only delivers value when the team re-solves from it at the agreed trigger, while small edits are handled as logged patches. Apply the rules below to decide when to re-run the model, when to edit manually, and when to disregard a polished demo.
If three or more pro-forma rounds are expected before design development, buy the seat that re-imports the constraint set rather than the one that produces the best-looking first pass. Test this before signing by changing 6 units in your 120-unit brief and timing the full re-run to a code-checkable plan. Ignore demo aesthetics; the operating question is whether the tool can absorb repeated mix pressure without rebuilding the plan from scratch.
If the mix is frozen by a signed pro forma, decide on export format and price only. A zero-revision project does not need generative search, so the evaluation should focus on whether the output drops cleanly into your documentation workflow. In this case, re-solve capability is not a buying criterion and should not justify added process complexity.
If a change is under 8 of 120 units and under 2% of net area, patch the plan and log the row; do not re-solve. Treat the edit as a controlled adjustment, record who requested it and when, and preserve the current constraint set for the next qualifying event. If a change is 8 or more units or 2% or more of net area, re-solve from the stored constraint set so the layout is regenerated against the same rules instead of accumulating ad hoc fixes.
Apply a reproduction test to every vendor claim. Run your own 120-unit brief in both tools, make the same change, and log three numbers: hours to a code-checkable plan, compliant variants per run, and manual wet-wall fixes. A claim counts only if you can reproduce it on your brief under the same conditions; if the vendor cannot repeat the result live, treat the claim as unverified and award the seat on your logged evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does Finch 3D's advantage in cutting mix revisions not apply?
The Finch 3D advantage does not apply when a re-solve of the stored constraint set is never requested.
What information must be recorded to classify a change as a mix revision?
A mix revision must be recorded with the date, driver, and requester, along with the change to the studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, or three-bedroom count or a net unit area change at or above the specified net-area threshold.
Where does a mix revision originate in a multifamily project?
A mix revision is born in the wet-wall stack, not in the rendered plan.
Why can swapping a two-bedroom unit for a one-bedroom unit force a core re-check?
Swapping a two-bedroom unit for a one-bedroom unit changes fixture loads and re-stacks the plumbing chase, which forces a core re-check before any plan image matters.
How should unit mix changes below the re-solve trigger be handled?
Changes below the unit-count threshold should be logged and edited manually rather than triggering a re-solve of the stored constraint set.
What distinguishes a layout edit from a mix revision event in the revision log?
If the wet-wall stack did not change, the logged event is classified as a layout edit rather than a mix revision.
Quick answers
| When does Finch 3D cut mix revisions on a 120-unit multifamily brief? | Finch 3D cuts mix revisions only when the unit mix is stored as a constraint set that re-solves on changes of 8 or more units or a net area change meeting the stated percentage threshold. |
| When does the Finch advantage not apply? | The Finch advantage does not apply where a re-solve is never requested. |
| How is a mix revision defined in this context? | A mix revision is any change to the studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, or three-bedroom count, or any net unit area change meeting the stated percentage threshold, recorded with date, driver, and requester. |
| Where is a mix revision born? | A mix revision is born in the wet-wall stack, not the rendered plan. |
| What information must be logged for each revision event? | Each revision must be logged as an event with the date, requester, driver, affected unit types, net area before and after, and whether the wet-wall stack changed. |
Also worth reading: The ambitious Boardwalk at Bricktown project is set to change the Oklahoma City skyline forever: ambitious Boardwalk at Bricktown project · Generative vs manual floor plans 2026: run a 10-iteration time trial: Generative vs manual floor plans