This tool does not evaluate a project as “good” or “bad,” nor does it assess the people behind it. Its purpose is to align understanding, set direction, and define what constitutes a strong solution within the brand.
It helps determine which projects align with the current direction of the brand’s visual language (the Drinkit Fit axis) and to what extent they push that direction forward (the Design Impact axis).
DRINKIT FIT AXIS
1. SYSTEM ALIGNMENT
System alignment reflects how much a project is composed of elements that are current for the brand. A high score does not mean the project is strong, and a low score does not mean it is weak.
System alignment is a single overarching criterion, but it is assessed through three subcategories: finish materials, furniture, and décor. Solutions do not have to be strictly standard; however, a good non-standard element is one we could potentially incorporate into the standard system.
1.1 FINISH MATERIALS
What we look at
- Use of standardized materials;
- Adherence to the logic of how standardized materials are applied;
- Introduction of new materials and whether they make sense — do they replace a standardized solution where the standard already solves the task better;
- Compliance with basic performance requirements.
Scale
0 — No fit
Materials sit outside the current language, replace standardized solutions without necessity, and/or are not used properly.
5 — Partial fit
Some decisions align with the system, but there are questionable or not fully convincing choices.
10 — Match
Materials fully align with the current direction of the brand.
1.2 FURNITURE
What we look at
- Use of elements from our library;
- Substitution of standard pieces with arbitrary alternatives;
- Custom furniture: whether it aligns with our design language;
- Compliance with basic requirements, including performance.
Scale
0 — No fit
Furniture does not align with the system. Arbitrary solutions are used, there is no connection to the library, and custom pieces fall outside our design language.
5 — Partial fit
Some furniture comes from the library or is close to it, but there are deviations: substitutions, imprecise custom work, or a mix of different approaches.
10 — Match
Furniture fully aligns with the system. Standard elements from the library are used, or custom pieces are properly designed within our language and principles.
1.3 DÉCOR
What we look at
- Presence and amount of elements from the library (both excess and lack of décor reduce the score);
- Introduction of non-standard solutions and whether they align with the system’s language;
- Coherence of the decorative layer (whether it reads as a unified language).
Scale
0 — No fit
The decorative layer is absent or replaced with random, foreign elements. The amount of décor is off: either too little or too much.
5 — Partial fit
The decorative layer is present but incomplete or inconsistent. It partially aligns with the language, but some elements feel out of place. The amount of décor is unbalanced: either insufficient or excessive.
10 — Match
The decorative layer is present and built within the system’s language. Standard elements from the library are used, or appropriate new solutions that can be integrated into the system. The amount of décor aligns with the brand’s character.
2. BLUE LEITMOTIF
This evaluates how present the blue leitmotif is in the architecture and how clearly it reads. This is not about a fixed “brand blue,” but about a spectrum of tones perceived as blue or close to it.
The leitmotif acts as a background layer; it does not take over primary attention. What matters is not just the presence of color, but its precision, subtlety, and appropriateness.
What we look at
- Presence of blue, light blue, and their shades in the architecture;
- Whether blue reads as a distinct signal;
- The amount and distribution of blue and its shades across the space.
Scale
0 — No fit
Blue is absent or does not read as a distinct signal. Or there is too much of it, and it stops functioning as a leitmotif.
5 — Partial fit
Blue is present but weak or inconsistent. It does not form a stable motif.
10 — Match
Blue reads as a clear and consistent leitmotif. It is integrated into the project and strengthens the overall perception.
3. VITALITY & DEPTH
Vitality and depth reflect the level of visual richness — how much the space has layers, articulation of surfaces, and visual accents, or, on the contrary, feels flat and sterile.
They are achieved through the use of materials, volumes, and light, and are not directly tied to coziness or the amount of décor. Even a minimalist space can feel alive if it has sufficient depth. Conversely, a detail-rich space can still feel dull.
What we look at
- Presence of visual accents;
- Articulation of surfaces and materials;
- Work with volumes, layers, and spatial depth;
- Whether the space feels too empty or stripped down;
- Whether it invites people to stay, not just pass through and perform a function;
- Whether it feels over-sterilized by excessive neatness.
Scale
0 — Sterile
The space feels flat, uniform, and over-cleaned. Surfaces lack articulation, and there is no work with volumes or layers.
5 — Neutral
Some surface articulation and work with volumes and layers are present, but overall the space remains fairly even and predictable. It is not off-putting, but it does not create a strong sense of life.
10 — Vibrant
The space has clear depth and layering. There is evident work with volumes and articulated surfaces. It feels rich, composed, and human.
DESIGN IMPACT AXIS
4. PERCEPTUAL NOVELTY
Perceptual novelty reflects the extent to which a space offers a new way of experiencing the brand within the context of the industry — compared to familiar scenarios of cafés, restaurants, QSR, fast-casual, and even retail.
What we look at
- Whether the project reads as “just another café/restaurant”;
- Whether it creates a sense of an unfamiliar experience;
- Whether it feels like an interior you have already seen many times on Pinterest;
- Whether familiar design moves are used without reinterpretation.
Scale
0 — Seen it before
Reads as a standard café or restaurant with no distinctive features. No new experience emerges.
5 — Claims novelty
There are some interesting moves in the project, but overall it remains within familiar scenarios. The sense of novelty appears only in fragments.
10 — New experience
It feels like an experience you have not encountered before. The space offers a new way of perceiving the café as a format.
5. N-FACTOR
This is a subjective, author-driven criterion where I assess how powerful I consider the result from an architectural standpoint. It is intentionally not reduced to a checklist and cannot be broken down into subcomponents.
It exists because a project may formally score well across all criteria — be sufficiently systematic, include a blue leitmotif, appear non-trivial — yet still not align with the kind of strong architectural presence I want to see as part of the brand’s DNA.
This criterion captures things that cannot be formalized. The final responsibility for the result lies with me (N), so I make the call on what counts as a strong outcome.
What I look at
- Whether I would be proud to show this project to the world;
- Whether it creates a sense of confidence in the solution;
- Whether the project has character and energy;
- Do I consider this a good architecture;
- That “rock and roll” feel.
And I simply rely on my experience and intuition. I know what I like and what I don’t like, and I’m decisive about it.
0 — Not convinced
It does not feel like something to use as a reference.
5 — Solid
Everything works, but it doesn’t leave a strong impression.
10 — Consider me a fan
Being part of this project fills me with pride. I want to tell the world about it and show it to my friends.
This tool does not pass judgment — it points the way. Everything else comes down to work, experimentation, and taste.
🤘
Click here to read in Russian