A useful claim of code compliance must name the rules checked, their source dates, the measurements used and any checks still open. An early software check alone is not a permit, a compliance certification or professional sign-off.
What the claim quietly leaves out
A rule check establishes only what was checked against the stated inputs and sources. The report must still identify unmeasured conditions, missing rules and the professional or authority review needed before the project proceeds.
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 checks layouts against prescriptive zoning and building-code rules: FAR/FSI, setbacks, height, parking and unit mix. It does not issue a compliance certification or replace licensed structural or MEP review.
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 by jurisdiction 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
The word "code-compliant" can lead a developer to skip professional review. Saying "checked against prescriptive provisions" tells them what they have and what a licensed professional must still confirm.
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 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.