Search any feasibility or masterplanning product and you'll find the same claim: "code-compliant layouts." It sounds like a finished statement. It isn't — it's a placeholder for a much longer sentence nobody wants to write out.
What the claim quietly leaves out
"Code-compliant" implies a layout has been checked against every applicable rule and certified fit to build. In practice, that certification is a specific, licensed act — a structural engineer stamps drawings, a local building department issues a permit, an architect of record signs off. Software doesn't do that. It can't, in most jurisdictions, by law.
What software *can* do is check a design against the rules that are written down and machine-readable: FAR and FSI limits, setback requirements, parking ratios, height caps, unit-density formulas. That's real, useful work — it catches the majority of layout mistakes before anyone pays a consultant to find them manually. But it's a different claim than "compliant," and collapsing the two is how a tool ends up implying certainty it doesn't have.
What we check, specifically
Keystone's layouts are generated against prescriptive zoning and building-code provisions — the numeric, rule-based part of the code: FAR/FSI, setbacks, height, parking, unit mix constraints. For India that's RERA, NBC, and CPWD SOR-linked cost norms. For the USA it's IBC plus state and local FAR data, tracked across all 50 states because zoning is set locally and a national average is close to useless for an actual site.
What it doesn't do: issue a compliance certification, replace a licensed structural or MEP review, or account for discretionary approvals (variances, design review boards, historic overlays) that depend on a human reading a specific submission. Those stay a licensed professional's job, and we say so in the product, not just in a footnote.
Why the distinction matters more than it sounds
A developer who hears "code-compliant" and skips the professional review step is taking on real risk — a risk the software created by using an unearned word. A developer who hears "checked against prescriptive provisions, not a substitute for sign-off" knows exactly what they're getting and what they still owe a professional. The second version is less impressive as a marketing line. It's also the only one that's true, and it's the version that survives a lender or a licensed engineer actually reading the fine print.
We're pre-revenue, live on real sites, with pilot conversations in progress across India and the USA — which is exactly the stage where overclaiming is cheapest to do and most expensive to walk back later. So we don't say "code-compliant." We say what the system actually checks, and we say what it doesn't.