Main entrance is far thinner ground than kitchen. Only one of these ten decisions — lock and access — has direct, multi-source, genuinely entrance-scoped content; the other nine either borrow real content built for a different room, or exist only as a named, options-free line in the whole-property scope tool. That distinction is said plainly in each card below rather than dressed up as more than it is.
The whole-property scope tool names this decision almost verbatim — its doors-plus-ironmongery line is a real, client-facing item every brief can include. But the catalogue content tied to that line compares leaf construction, not configuration — it never actually ladders a single opening against a double one. Unequal leaf, a side light and a top light don't appear anywhere in the registry, any decision set, or any scope line.
One decision set is a real, published comparison of hinged, offset-pivot, pocket and surface-sliding operation — though only three of its four options currently have a render shown; hinged, the default every other option is priced against, is filed but withheld below the publication floor. More importantly, this set is authored and guided throughout as an interior door for a bedroom or study leaf, never for the main entrance. Folding isn't modelled for any architectural door anywhere on the site.
The scope tool's door line carries a real four-way ladder — hollow-core flush, solid-core/moulded, glazed/framed-glass and a bespoke pivot/concealed-frame leaf, the last written explicitly for the entrance or a key room. But it compares door style, not the material axis this decision asks about: aluminium and steel are never named as door-leaf options anywhere, and the registry doesn't draw a solid-timber-versus-engineered-timber distinction. Separately, ALUMAX does carry a distinct entrance-doors product category with its own catalogue, confirming the product line is real — but ELS hosts no comparison of it.
The only place this appears anywhere on the site is the scope tool's structural/lintel/openings line — a real, client-facing item, but explicitly classed as builders' work with no registry option behind it, and it covers every structural opening in the property, not the entrance specifically. No brick, concrete, steel, timber or lightweight-wall ladder for a door frame's substrate exists anywhere — this is the thinnest of the ten.
The scope tool names door casing exactly, in the owner's own term — 门套 door casing / architrave — but that line is explicitly builders' work with zero registry option, the same gap as the window-casing and skirting lines beside it. The nearest real content is the general exterior wall-panel decision (laminate, timber veneer, aluminium composite, or a stone-look panel), which covers several of the named materials as facade or feature-wall cladding generally, not the door portal specifically, and isn't linked to the door-casing line itself. PVD metal exists only as a slim accent trim elsewhere, not a cladding material, and plaster isn't modelled anywhere.
Two real scope lines touch this directly — roof/awning/canopy, and external drainage/gutters — both genuine, client-facing items a brief can include, and both explicitly classed as builders' work with no registry option behind them. A recessed entrance isn't named anywhere on the site, and the only threshold-seal content that exists is an acoustic doorset's drop-down seal, which the registry itself scopes to sound privacy for a media room or home office — a different purpose from keeping rain and wind out at a front door, not a substitute for it.
This is the best-covered decision in the category, from three converging, live sources. One decision set names lever-mortise, pull-deadbolt and smart-lock, with pull-deadbolt framed explicitly for entry doors where security and a deliberate gesture both matter. The registry's entrance-locking item ladders cylinder-deadbolt, mortice multi-point and digital smart lock by name, and a second registry item separately adds PIN, fingerprint, card or phone with remote grant/revoke for family and helpers — covering mechanical, multipoint, digital, biometric and access control between the two. Only a dedicated centralised access-control system, beyond a single door's smart lock, isn't separately modelled.
Two decision sets are real, published comparisons of solid, semi-transparent/frosted and clear glazing — genuinely useful for judging what each transparency level looks and feels like, and backed by a five-rung registry item that also covers operable and switchable/adjustable glazing. But every one of them is authored and roomed as between rooms — an interior-partition decision, not the entrance door — and the two options this decision specifically names, a peephole and a side light, aren't modelled anywhere on the site.
The only footprint here is the scope tool's accessibility-provisions line — real and client-facing, but explicitly classed as builders' work with no registry option, and scoped to the whole property's accessibility rather than the entrance threshold specifically. Raised, low, flush and ramped aren't laddered as options anywhere on the site.
Entrance lighting is the stronger half: the registry's facade-lighting tier is written explicitly to mark the entrance, and a real scope line — exterior/facade lighting — carries it into a client's brief, a genuine, named match for integrated lighting. The finish half is thinner and scattered across products authored for other elements: the general exterior wall-panel option lists a timber-look facade finish, and a separate aluminium-window item describes a powder-coated frame in matte black or silver, but neither is written for the entrance door leaf itself, and stain and anodised finish aren't named as an option anywhere on the site.