No technical integration between Archistar and the city’s permit software. The applicant uses Archistar directly, and results are shared back through a manual or semi-manual hand-off — typically a share-link pasted into the application record, or a PDF attached to it.
This is the fastest pattern to deploy, the lowest IT dependency, and a strong fit for cities without API-capable permit software or for trial deployments. It’s also a valid end state, not just a transitional pattern — not every city needs deep integration.
Hosted is also the strongest non-integrated path for self-assess. When the applicant submits in Archistar directly, they can run PreCheck, review findings, iterate, and only share the final report back to the city when they’re satisfied — the iteration-before-submit quality benefit without any integration work.
What the flow can look like. A hybrid hand-off with deliberately light friction: the applicant opens a city-provided Archistar link and completes their submission. Archistar processes it and notifies the applicant when results are ready. After reviewing, the applicant clicks through to the city’s permit portal — the Archistar submission ID is prepopulated, so no manual paste is required. The reviewer encounters the report from inside the city’s existing application record. Archistar and the permit system aren’t talking to each other, but most of the operational benefit is captured.
When this fits
Section titled “When this fits”- Your permit software isn’t API-capable, or you don’t have appetite for a full integration build right now.
- You want to evaluate PreCheck on real submissions before committing to a deeper integration.
- Permit volumes are low enough that a manual hand-off is acceptable.
- You want the quality lift from self-assess without the integration cost.
Effectively nothing is required on the permit-software side. The city configures their Archistar tenant — rules, checks, branding, users — and picks a hand-off pattern (share-link, PDF attachment, or a prepopulated submission ID).
Trade-offs
Section titled “Trade-offs”| Pros | Cons | |
|---|---|---|
| For the applicant | Can self-assess and iterate before sharing anything with the city | Hand-off step (paste link / upload report) is manual |
| For the city | No vendor-side integration work; quickest path to live | Report doesn’t land natively in the application record — viewed via link or attachment |
| For PreCheck quality | Self-assess delivers the iteration-before-submit benefit | Reporting on iteration cycles is harder to surface back to the city without integration |
| Effort to stand up | Lowest of the three patterns | Manual hand-off may not scale for high application volumes |
Custom intake variant
Section titled “Custom intake variant”A variant of hosted where Archistar hosts a webform tailored to the city’s bespoke intake requirements, rather than using the standard PreCheck question set.
The standard question set covers the large majority of intake cases, so standard hosted is usually a stronger starting point. If you think your city’s intake needs are bespoke enough to warrant a custom form, raise it early — it materially changes the shape of the engagement. Mechanically, the variant works the same as standard hosted: submissions process the same way, the report is shared back through the chosen hand-off, and self-assess is available.