What we tested in Aura /
The tests behind Aura: inputs, actions, observed results and the limits of that evidence.
An oversized editorial masthead and cinematic coastal architecture lead into spatial thinking, interiors and material studies. The journey moves from atmosphere to a concrete room brief.
Internal local testing, using synthetic inputs and owned assets. The results below establish the observed software behavior in those scenarios. They do not establish customer ROI, uptime or external deployment readiness.
Seven HTTP groups passed across 47 requests
The API acceptance run verified valid image bytes, repeated-content deduplication, file isolation, image-type and foreign-reference rejection, room-area calculation, edit retries, stale-version rejection, submit replay and return to draft after editing. Invalid dimensions and an empty room list were rejected. Test brief totals changed from seventeen to twenty square metres after an edit.
The complete briefing journey ran in a real browser
The browser run imported the original courtyard through the UI, created a 5,000 by 6,000 millimetre living room and a 2,000 by 3,000 millimetre reading study, and attached the courtyard reference. The displayed combined area was 36 square metres. Actual screenshots showed the room cutaway, working zoom and a visible floor change from limestone to oak.
A discovered save-state defect was corrected and retested
The first browser pass found that a successful save could still display unsaved changes because local and returned room properties were ordered differently. After the implementation adopted the returned canonical rooms and title, a fresh save immediately exposed export and submission. The retest submitted the two-room brief and downloaded the actual PDF.
Persistence and mobile use were observed
A full reload retained the submitted two-room brief in the saved library. Its PDF contained both rooms, requirements, references and the 36-square-metre total. Desktop and 390-pixel-wide mobile screenshots were inspected. This was a focused browser journey, not a complete accessibility, device-performance or construction-accuracy assessment.
What this evidence does not establish
The spatial scene is an illustrative room cutaway. It is not a measured site survey, building information model, structural assessment, construction drawing or assurance that a proposed layout meets applicable requirements.
The demonstrated courtyard is an original AI-generated fictional study. Credits explain that framing; it must not be presented as a commissioned or completed architectural project.
Submission creates a local stored brief. The tested journey does not send email, book a consultation, assign a designer or deliver the document to an external studio system.
Observed browser coverage includes desktop and mobile layouts, save, submit, reload, export and selected 3D controls. Reduced-motion behaviour, forced WebGL failure, screen readers and low-power hardware were not assessed in this evidence set.
A similar problem in your business?
Bring a real workflow, representative inputs and the result that needs to be reliable.
Shape a project brief