Apollo Project Brief Standard
Separates the minimum useful project brief from stronger review information and later-stage specification, freight and document requirements.
Build Project BriefApollo public reference index · permanent links
This is the public link directory for Apollo's professional project resources. Consultants, contractors, procurement teams, manufacturers and project partners can bookmark one page, then link directly to the exact standard, checklist, working template or comparison matrix they need.
01 · Apollo public standards
These are durable operating references. They define the information standard and evidence boundary before a product or supplier claim is carried into a project.
Separates the minimum useful project brief from stronger review information and later-stage specification, freight and document requirements.
Cross-category framework for product identity, verified technical data, project-dependent requirements, local responsibilities, substitutions and document control.
Explains what datasheets, test reports, certificates, calculations, manuals, drawings and warranties can support — and where their scope stops.
Public manufacturer-review framework covering identity, production capability, technical evidence, export readiness, project support and lifecycle support.
Public evidence standard for manufacturers covering product identity, model applicability, specifications, drawings, testing, certification, engineering, warranty, QC, export packaging and project support.
Rules separating verified case studies, anonymised evidence, representative applications and planning frameworks so public project claims stay evidence-based.
02 · Working templates
Open the live template to copy it, download CSV or print / save PDF. Direct anchors remain stable so teams can link to the exact tool.
A working checklist for scope, evidence, commercial terms, quality control, logistics, local responsibilities and handover.
A structured review of supplier identity, manufacturing ownership, engineering, technical evidence, quality, export readiness, warranty and lifecycle support.
A document-control template for requested, received, reviewed and approved technical project information.
A structured international project brief covering site, drawings, scope, performance, climate, documentation, programme, freight and local works.
03 · Project checklists
The checklist itself has a permanent anchor in the Technical Centre. Each one also links onward to the full planning guide so the short reference and deeper explanation stay connected.
Use these working templates when a project needs a repeatable procurement, supplier-review or document-control structure.
Use this before comparing modular tile and roll-out surfaces.
Capture the whole playing envelope before choosing a surface.
Define the rider group and surrounding site as well as the track footprint.
Define the training programme, site geometry and operating model before selecting SLOPEspan terrain.
Define the venue, spectator system and local project interfaces before a seating layout is treated as a procurement package.
Record the structural and operating details that width × drop alone cannot answer.
Coordinate structure, drainage and future enclosure before accessories.
Coordinate the complete landscape before individual fire, water, screen or planter products are frozen.
Plan the final position together with the transport and lifting route.
Turn the intended use and destination into a project-ready building brief.
Define the handover point, receiving party and required documents before shipment.
Give Apollo enough project context to qualify existing systems and source missing categories without turning the brief into a generic product list.
Treat vehicle limits and travel rhythm as the hard boundaries of the setup.
Confirm the pickup and complete touring role before freezing a TerraRise configuration.
Plan the cooking zone, guest zone and local fire responsibilities before fixing the location.
04 · Comparison matrices
Knowledge-centre matrices are discovered from the live resource registry, so this section expands automatically as new matrix-backed authority guides are added.
Compare the design role, application, ventilation, shaping potential, weight consideration and key review issue across façade system families.
Use this as a starting structure. Not every project needs every document, and additional jurisdiction-specific evidence may be required by the local project team.
The quote should state the actual handover point. These common structures change which freight and receiving tasks sit inside the supplied scope and which remain with the purchaser or local project team.
This is a question-setting framework only. It highlights issues that often deserve early attention; it does not describe every project or replace country-specific engineering and statutory review.
Use this matrix to identify the dominant project questions in each zone before sourcing begins. It is a briefing tool, not a fixed package or promise that every category will be supplied on every project.
Use this matrix before a supplier is relied upon for a significant project. The required depth should increase with structural, safety, technical, programme and commercial risk.
Live market-by-market view of Apollo product priorities across the controlled regional product matrix.
International-project comparison covering destination, climate, local requirements, freight handover, site interfaces and controlled receiving documents.
Use this as an early comfort-and-use comparison. Exact fabric construction, openness, dimensions, wind behaviour and weather performance remain model- and project-specific.
The same modular pool can create very different site interfaces depending on how it relates to ground level, decks and surrounding structures. Use this matrix before foundations and landscaping are frozen.
Use the matrix to check whether the tender package is ready to compare like with like. It does not replace the project contract, consultant documents or destination-specific procurement requirements.
The two pathways solve the playing surface differently. This table keeps the comparison at project-planning level so the exact product can be verified later.
This matrix compares the practical role of each format within a commercial gym. It does not prescribe thickness, density or impact performance, which remain product- and project-specific.
Use this as an early planning reference. It compares the role each broad surface family can play before a specific product, thickness, fixing method or project-dependent performance requirement is selected.
Compare portable bleachers, retractable seating, aluminium and steel grandstands, covered stands and fixed stadium seating before project-specific layout.
05 · Specification toolkit
These resources sit between the project brief and the final project-specific specification. They are designed to preserve evidence, deviations, responsibilities and unresolved requirements through procurement.
Copyable early-stage clauses for current information, evidence, supply scope, substitutions, submittals, mock-ups, revision control, logistics, warranty and spares.
A structured comparison of specified requirements, proposed alternatives, technical evidence, lifecycle support and declared deviations.
A project-focused request schedule that ties each evidence request to the exact product, configuration, claim and standard being checked.
A controlled return schedule for manufacturer technical data, drawings, calculations, tests, manuals, warranty and final project records.
A responsibility and evidence schedule that exposes verified, project-dependent and unresolved requirements before tender comparison.
Reference integrity
This directory points to the current Apollo owner resource. It does not copy product performance into a separate uncontrolled document. If a product page, technical file or project quotation is updated, that current source continues to control the project-specific claim.