When one design makes another look better: biophilic option geometry in workplace appraisal

Biophilic workplace research has examined occupant outcomes and implementation, but how the composition of competing design options may influence provisional appraisal remains insufficiently understood. Architectural appraisal challenges the stable-option and individual-choice assumptions of conventional attraction-effect studies because concepts evolve, evidence is unevenly represented, and stakeholders differ in expertise, authority, and responsibility. This conceptual study asks how attraction-effect theory must be adapted to this setting. Theory adaptation, supported by a structured critical integrative review, examines mismatches between the source theory and architectural practice and develops constructs, conditional propositions, and testing requirements. Three linked constructs result. Biophilic option geometry translates 15 biophilic patterns into project-specific audit fields without equating pattern presence with performance. Geometry trajectory tracks whether role- and stage-specific dominance persists, dissolves, or reverses as designs and evidence change. Professional validity distinguishes a possible choice-set influence from defensible architectural advice. Six propositions identify proposed mechanisms, rival explanations, and disconfirming observations. An initial prospective protocol compares A–B and A–B–D choice sets within one stakeholder role and one design gate, subject to advance assessment of comparator credibility, asymmetric dominance, a continuing A–B trade-off, and representational and informational parity. For architectural design management, the contribution is a proposed audit structure for making comparison conditions and unresolved burdens explicit. No empirical study is reported, and neither the model nor the audit has been validated. The framework provides a bounded basis for future testing rather than evidence that attraction effects occur in architectural practice.