As an architect, I haven't figured it out either...

Generally, we are supposed to detail lots of stuff we don't know shit about and are actually quite relieved that the specialists know how to do it properly. But then, sometimes we really really mean it, some detail really is important to do it exactly like this for the building. Obviously nobody takes us seriously then.

I personally think that it is best practice that an architect (and every other planner) clearly defines which are their critical points and nothing else. There is nothing worse than a fully dimensioned detail plan that differs from the civil engineer's plan, and worse, is technically wrong, when all the architect cares about is that the insulation is above and not below the floor and the window frame is <60mm wide and anthracite gray.

Of course there needs to be a superposition of the different plans, to ensure everything goes together, put together by the architect and then validated by every team member. But especially young architects like to get over-excited and define stuff they don't have a clue about and that turn out wrong. And even within their own team nobody cares enough to double-check.

I basically see our job as a manager who decides and guides what the whole thing is supposed to be like, and who needs to be competent enough to understand and integrate what each of the specialists tell him. This is necessarily an iterative work where everybody needs to consider the needs of everybody else. When we collect the information from all the engineers and put everything together, things always need to be adapted by everyone, and then everybody always bitches because everybody just wants us to give them the specs like 2 months before the due date and then let them work one single time. Well, it doesn't work that way. /rant

I just wish there was a sure-fire way that I could tell when an engineer or builder tells me it doesn't work that way if it is because a) it really doesn't work that way b) it could work but he hadn't noticed and quoted it correctly in the tender and doesn't want to lose money or c) He just does it differently and doesn't want to risk anything trying something new or sometimes d) he already planned it and doesn't want to redo his work or even e) my solution actually works better and he just doesn't know any better.

I have worked on some steel-heavy projects and in my experience it usually it works best if you have a good engineer who is ready to exchange plans with you a couple of times and explain to you which are his critical points to allow us to define the shape of an element correctly way before the tender phase. If you are sure that it works the way you have drawn it, then you can simply refuse a plan that a builder proposes that doesn't correspond to the specs. And usually, if your plan is good and the same as the engineer's plan, the builder will respect it, anyways.