Every one of the ten decisions below sits under the same rule: geometry, structure and guarding are measured and specified on site, never chosen from a menu the way a paint colour can be. What follows is real ELS content wherever it exists — a configurator item, a concept-study gallery, a trade specification — named plainly where it doesn't yet.
ELS's own concept-study gallery shows real configuration variety — a helical spiral stair, a separate sculptural spiral, and a grand, symmetrical twin-flight foyer stair are all currently shown. A straight run and an L-shaped turn exist but aren't published yet, and neither a U-shape nor a simply curved (non-spiral) stair appears anywhere. This is inspiration photography, not a structured tool a homeowner picks a configuration from.
ELS's ecosystem-maturity register sets the whole staircase scope to project-only, assessment required, and names exactly these parameters — floor-to-floor height, run, rise and going, width, landing — as what gets measured and validated before anything is specified. That's a validation requirement stated to the client, not a menu: no page lets a homeowner compare tread depths, riser heights, step counts or landing sizes against each other.
The Room Scope Builder's staircase item compares three real structural approaches: a reinforced-concrete stair, solid timber treads over an RC or steel frame, and an engineered floating/cantilever stair anchored into a wall or a hidden steel spine. Steel on its own, and a general "mixed structure" option, aren't named separately — floating/cantilever is the only steel-adjacent entry, and it bundles the structural choice together with an open-riser outcome rather than isolating structure alone.
The same Room Scope Builder item bundles tread and riser treatment into those three structural options — tile on the RC stair, solid timber on the timber-tread stair, open risers on the floating stair — so a closed-riser tile-versus-timber choice is real, live content today. Stone and carpet tread finishes, and metal as a tread material, aren't offered anywhere on the site; those two closed-riser finishes are the only ones actually comparable.
Solid wall, metal bar, glass, mesh and cable infill have no structured comparison on this site today. Like every staircase decision above, whatever is chosen here is confirmed against the actual opening, wall build-up and structure on site — never picked from a page alone.
Handrail material has no decision of its own anywhere on the site — it appears only as an incidental detail inside other renders, never as a standalone timber-versus-aluminium-versus-steel or wall-mounted-versus-integrated choice.
No page compares ceiling, wall, step, handrail or sensor lighting for a stair. Step or handrail lighting with concealed drivers is named as a real design consideration internally, but it isn't rendered as its own decision on any live page today.
ELS's concept gallery includes a dedicated under-stair-storage set — a full-height storage bank and a single cupboard door are both currently shown — and storage is named as a real deliverable. Storage is the only under-stair use modelled anywhere on the site; open display, seating, a powder room or equipment housing under the stair don't appear as options anywhere.
The same project-only staircase scope behind decision 2 explicitly lists headroom, landing, structure and guarding among what must be measured and validated — priced only as a specialist quotation, never a figure on a page. For what an enlarged landing or feature void can look like, the concept gallery shows real variety — a window-seat nook, a lit niche, a gallery wall, an open double-height stair hall — but no compliance figures are published anywhere; it stays a measurement requirement, not a number to check against.
ELS's trade specification library covers stair-edge detailing in real depth — a catalogued nosing-profile family and construction detail sheets resolving the nosing junction across timber, PVC, tile and stone finishes, down to a stated tolerance between adjacent treads. That page is written for the trade, not as a homeowner comparison, and shadow gap, skirting and removable maintenance access aren't named for stairs anywhere else on the site.