Several original requests proposed generating new images when photographs were blurry or cropped on mobile. Other requests sought a brighter opening view based on the building or more attractive facilities material suited to its display area. These cannot be grouped under one generic image-replacement permission. Some visuals communicate atmosphere; some documents explain facts.
I have compared selected actual generation specifications with the material rules. A specification asks to retain a reference scene’s structure and produce a clearer expression. That wording does not establish that the result matches the actual building. The requested visual intent and the factual meaning a visitor may infer need separate records.
Blur and cropping call for different investigations
Enlarging a blurry source does not create missing detail. A sharp file cropped by an unsuitable display ratio may instead need changes to its area or subject position. The historical requests include both problems. I separate source quality, slot ratio and material role before deciding which repair is appropriate.
The shared guide permits a replacement illustration for decorative photo material whose subject does not fit the slot. It is not a rule to generate a new picture for every crop. Inspecting important content and preparing separate landscape and portrait material remain useful choices. Preserving an original through layout correction and producing a new expression are different paths.
A generation specification records intent, not completed fact checking
The selected specification asks to preserve building massing, arrangement and facade rhythm while using brighter daylight. A facilities scene also carries instructions to retain its function and composition. Those conditions establish what the maker asked to change. Their presence in a prompt does not prove that the resulting pixels followed every condition.
The archive excludes the original result pixels, so I have not freshly compared those scenes. I cannot publish a claim that every generated picture accurately depicts its reference building. Specification, inspection of the result and interpretation on the website are separate steps. A convincing visual makes that separation more necessary, not less.
Keep plans and maps as source documents
The shared guide distinguishes plans, maps and text or location-bearing material as documents and preserves the original complete presentation. It explicitly excludes generated replacements. Inventing room arrangements, nearby facilities or figures to fill unavailable information would change what visitors are judging. Improving appearance and preserving a fact are different responsibilities.
Official logos and VR likewise remain material to connect rather than invent. The new notice module rejects a declared generated document or logo as a bounded policy choice. It does not inspect a file and discover its type. The maker must establish the role before supplying a declaration; the code records part of that responsibility.
Manage the picture’s declaration and presentation together
Generated illustrative photographs need their generation status and explanation retained in the material record. Putting them beside original photographs must not erase that distinction for the next maker. The source guide records generated and disclosure together. An on-screen notice then needs to correspond to the image actually being shown.
When desktop and mobile use different files, one file’s declaration should not automatically govern the other. Connect the selected source to its inspected description. A notice program is not a substitute for investigating the source. I separate making the declaration from carrying it into the rendered view.
Do not turn a visual replacement into unmeasured business success
The records support a method for separating references, generation intent and presentation rules. They do not measure better customer understanding, more inquiries or the elimination of every misunderstanding about a facility. The fact that an image was changed and work continued is not evidence of those outcomes. Preserving the roles of factual documents and illustrations comes first.
A customer can describe both the wish for a more attractive picture and the actual space that needs explanation. The maker should identify what expression may change and what facts must remain. The useful knowledge I want to leave is not a tool name, but a way to define responsibilities before using the new speed of image production.