Only the vanity has close-to-exact published content here — three live decision sets covering form, basin coordination and tier. Almost everything else is real but narrower: photography that exists but isn't published as its own decision yet, tiered waterproofing and ventilation catalogues that were never scoped to this room specifically, and detail that currently lives only on an internal, staff-only register. Where nothing exists at all — bathroom layout — that's said plainly. A shorter, 8-question version of some of this already lives in ELS's guided intake; this page goes deeper.
Linear, divided wet/dry, hotel-style and open-ensuite layout types have no decision, scope line or catalogue row anywhere on this site. The closest internal content classifies a bathroom by who uses it and by which fixtures sit in a wet, semi-wet or dry zone — neither is the spatial layout typology this decision asks about, and neither is public.
Real photography exists for framed, frameless and semi-frameless glass shower-screen construction, but it isn't published as its own decision on this site yet. A kerb-versus-enclosed-shower comparison, distinct from the screen-construction question, doesn't exist anywhere either.
A published three-tier waterproofing ladder exists — a basic wet-floor coat, a full membrane with upstands, and a fully tanked wet room whose own copy names a curbless shower and a seamless, level-threshold result as the top tier's outcome — alongside a separate three-tier drainage ladder (single trap, graded falls, linear channel with secondary drain). Neither is phrased as a direct step-down-versus-kerbed-versus-level-access choice: the floor-level outcome follows from which waterproofing tier is specified, not offered as its own named option.
A standard/rain-shower/dual/freestanding/built-in-style classification exists, but only inside ELS's internal bathroom standardisation register — a staff-only reference page, not part of the public site. It packages fittings into tiers built around a named, standardised supplier stack; that supplier detail can't appear on a public page, and no public, client-facing comparison of shower or bathtub type has been published separately.
The same internal register standardises WC options into floor-mounted, wall-hung, concealed-cistern, smart and accessible variants, again tied to a named supplier and gated to staff. Nothing on the public site currently compares WC system type; the closest public content is a general plumbing-points scope line, which bundles a WC in as one inclusion rather than comparing configurations.
One decision set compares three real vanity forms by floor clearance — wall-hung/clear floor, floor-standing/full base, and furniture-style-on-legs — and another compares four basin-and-drawer coordination formats: vessel/small cut-out, drop-in/deep bowl, undermount/U-drawer, and integrated top/offset trap. A third set adds a separate Essential/Signature/Bespoke tier ladder for the whole vanity package, and all three are live today. A vanity-material comparison by wet-zone exposure is filed but not yet shown, and double-basin specifically isn't modelled as its own option.
Three real, authored comparison sheets — mirror shape, mirror-lighting strategy, and daily-storage configuration — ask almost exactly this question, but none of them is shown in the live gallery yet; the content is catalogued but not yet visible to a visitor.
A published, whole-home ventilation ladder exists — natural/passive vents, a mechanical exhaust fan, a ceiling fan, louvred vents, and a fresh-air/heat-recovery system — and the exhaust-fan option's own copy names a windowless bathroom directly as the case it answers. It isn't modelled as a bathroom-specific comparison, though, and no humidity-sensor trigger option exists anywhere on the site.
One decision set is real, live and scoped specifically to the bathroom: it compares a mosaic-tile-lined shower niche against a single-piece slab lining. That's a narrow, single-niche comparison, though, not the room's general floor and wall surfaces. The broader small-tile/large-tile/stone/microcement ladder this decision names exists only as a general, room-agnostic material catalogue — a wall and facade tile line, and a separate premium-finishing line that includes microcement among unrelated junction finishes — neither scoped to a bathroom specifically.
The lighting planner genuinely reaches this room: its task-lighting step describes bright, shadow-free light exactly where you cut, read or work at a mirror, and a separate installation-conditions step sets a real, named IP-rating rule for bathrooms, laundries and shower zones. Socket and switch positions and dedicated circuits are a general scope-builder inclusion rather than a bathroom-zoned comparison. Night lighting as its own named layer, and protected bathroom sockets specifically, aren't modelled publicly yet. A shorter, 8-question version of some of this already lives in ELS's guided intake — this page goes deeper.