The challenge: a drawing does not answer everything.
The source photograph contains readable room labels and several useful dimensions, but the bottom of the sheet is cropped. The layout includes two bedrooms, a bathroom, a hall and an open kitchen and living area. Two different terraces shape the whole composition: a rectangular one on the left and a larger one with a diagonal edge on the right.
A shared frame came first.
Walls and openings were traced without mirroring the plan. Room areas were copied from the drawing and kept distinct from the areas of approximately traced polygons. Ceiling heights, finishes and railings were recorded as assumptions. This makes the model useful without pretending that the source supplies more precision than it does.
Revisions clarified everyday relationships.
Reviewing the model led to changes in the corner sofa orientation, its open end and the armchair position. The table and chairs were turned together to match the source. Their complete bounds were checked against the kitchen, rather than checking only the tabletop. The kitchen return was shortened after another comparison with the photograph; its exact length is not separately dimensioned and remains approximate.
A requested addition stayed separate from the source.
A simple entrance landing was added without walls or a roof. It is not visible on the cropped drawing, is not counted in the apartment area and is labelled as a proposal. This shows how a new idea can be explored without presenting it as an original building fact.
The result: a model for review and discussion.
The delivered space can be rotated, walked through, cut away and compared with its source plan. This is a demonstration project from product development. It does not claim commercial savings, improved sales or an as-built condition. Its purpose is to make the layout and the remaining questions easier to understand.