You are helping the facilities team and designer of Calder Yards, a fictional mixed-use tower. They have an existing model and want to revise it, compare the changed operation, and keep the reasons and inputs for a later meeting. Use the connected Laydyne MCP; the published project is open and its original, as-drawn layout A has been restored. Keep its existing options and results. Work only through MCP on the model. Call tools sequentially and use current expectedRevision for each write.

The synthetic morning-peak scenario is already present: seed 7, three runs, 150 minutes, the saved office/resident/courier arrivals and service times. Keep the arrivals, observation window, seed and number of runs unchanged. They are assumptions, not observed facility data. We have no staffing prices, construction costs or structural/fire-safety design.

1. Read the current status, relevant L1 parts and saved scenario. Keep the purpose, recipient, provided inputs and unknown costs in the design brief. Save independent new options named "UC5 A — café as drawn, 2 baristas": both a design option (id uc5-a) and a process option. Keep the existing building and connections unchanged.
2. The requested change is that the café occupies the neighbouring Unit R3 and gets a second service point and four baristas. On L1, make only this existing script's edit:
   - wall-w19: d becomes 12.07.
   - room-13: label "Café (extended into Unit R3)", tags ["cafe"].
   - Add cafe-counter-2: counter, label "Café counter 2", x 43.2, z 41.9, w 5, d 0.8, h 1.05, tags ["cafe-counter"].
   - Add cafe-queue-2: zone, label "Café queue 2", x 43.2, z 40.3, w 5, d 1.2, tags ["cafe-queue"].
   - Add cafe-table-5/6/7/8: round_table, label "Café table", w 1.2, d 1.2, h 0.75, at (43.2,28), (46.6,28), (43.2,32), (46.6,32).
3. Set the live morning-peak parameter baristas to 4. Save independent new design (id uc5-b) and process options named "UC5 B — café extended, 4 baristas". Check all floors and compare UC5 A and UC5 B by stable IDs. Report what changed and what stayed unchanged.
4. Use compare_process_options for the new A/B process options, keeping the same arrivals/window/seed/runs. Explain the café wait and peak queue, overall elapsed time and completed work, and any warnings. This tests the combined layout-and-staff change; do not attribute the entire difference to floor area. Recommend conditionally on the assumptions and say what evidence/costs are missing.
5. Save the current project locally as "Calder Yards — UC5 A/B/C" (the name will be used by the next step). Write a small HANDOFF.json in the current folder with the new design/process option IDs, comparison ID, saved project ID/revision, and current geometry hash. Write the actual findings and conditional recommendation in S1-results.md. Do not guess values or delete the existing evidence to reduce file size. The recording operator will collect the complete project and pictures separately after the step; no need to transcribe large JSON or image bytes into the answer.

This is one bounded use-case execution, not an efficiency comparison against an AI-only method. Keep failures and uncertainty visible.