Skip to content
v1·1 version

Convert a planning refusal into a point by point response strategy

Take a refusal notice and produce a table of every reason cited, what would answer it, and which drawing needs to change.

by Don black · published Sep 6, 2026

Not yet verifiedtarget model not in registry

A refusal notice is written to be defensible, not to be actionable. Reasons are compressed into planning language and often bundle three separate objections into one paragraph. This splits them apart, ties each to the policy actually cited, and says plainly what evidence or drawing change would address it. The value is in separating the reasons you can design around from the ones you cannot.

Target models
claude-opus-4.5, claude-sonnet-4.5, gpt-4o-2024-11-20
Time
20 min
Difficulty
Medium
Cost
9,000 input tokens, ~2,500 output tokens (roughly $0.11 on Opus 4.5)

Tools / stack

Claudethe local plan documentNotion or Word

Inputs required

The refusal notice as text or PDF, plus the relevant local plan policies if you have them

Steps

  1. 1.Extract every numbered reason for refusal verbatim, without paraphrasing.
  2. 2.Split any reason that contains more than one distinct objection into separate rows.
  3. 3.For each row, quote the policy reference cited and state in plain language what it requires.
  4. 4.Classify each as design change, evidence gap, or fundamental. Fundamental means no drawing revision will fix it.
  5. 5.For design change and evidence gap rows, state the specific action and which drawing or document it lands on.
  6. 6.Rank the rows by how much of the refusal they carry, so the response effort goes where it counts.

Expected output

A table with reason number, verbatim text, policy cited, classification, proposed response, and owning drawing or document

Golden Example

Input
Refusal notice with four numbered reasons, one of which bundles overlooking, massing, and materials into a single paragraph
Output
Six rows returned after splitting. Overlooking classified as design change tied to the first floor plan, massing as design change on the section, materials as evidence gap needing a supplementary schedule. The parking reason classified fundamental because the shortfall is absolute

Sign in to verify this playbook: run it and log what happened.

Reports

7 reports · 5 worked · 2 changed · 0 broke

Raw reproduction reports: evidence, not a verified badge yet.

  • Worked· claude-opus-4.5
    v1·Sep 6, 2026

    Tied each reason to the right drawing. Meant the team knew what to pick up on Monday.

    by Kelv

  • Worked· claude-opus-4.5
    v1·Sep 6, 2026

    Used the output as the agenda for the client meeting. Nobody argued with the structure.

    by Chisom collins

  • Worked with changes· claude-sonnet-4.5
    v1·Sep 6, 2026

    Invented a policy reference that does not exist in our local plan. Checked and it was fabricated.

    by TEKAnology

  • Worked with changes· claude-sonnet-4.5
    v1·Sep 6, 2026

    by TEKAnology

  • Worked· claude-opus-4.5
    v1·Sep 6, 2026

    Ran it on an appeal decision rather than a refusal and it still held up.

    by The Je’don

  • Worked· claude-sonnet-4.5
    v1·Sep 6, 2026

    Ranking by weight was more useful than I expected. We answered two reasons properly instead of four badly.

    by Chidiebere blessing

  • Worked· claude-opus-4.5
    v1·Sep 6, 2026

    Split a three part reason that we had been treating as one. Changed how we scoped the resubmission.

    by Noe james