How should developers handle differences between the approved design and AI-generated implementation?

How should developers handle differences between the approved design and AI-generated implementation?

Developers should evaluate differences against the purpose of the design and the agreed behavior. Some differences are harmless adaptations; others prevent users from completing the intended task or violate the product's visual conventions.

Describe the mismatch precisely

Identify the screen, viewport, state, and element involved. Compare the approved reference with the running implementation using realistic content. A statement such as “The task drawer hides the Save button on a small screen” is more actionable than “The design looks wrong.”

Separate visual discrepancies from behavioral defects. Incorrect spacing, missing validation, and an unauthorized action require different fixes even when they appear on the same screen.

Prioritize usability and product rules

Check whether the difference affects reading order, accessible interaction, primary actions, or scope. A task status control must support the documented transitions and remain understandable with keyboard navigation. Matching the reference color does not compensate for a broken update.

The implementation may need a deliberate adaptation for long content, smaller screens, or an existing component system. Discuss material changes and record the accepted decision instead of silently treating every deviation as either correct or unacceptable.

Give the assistant bounded correction instructions

Reference the affected component and expected outcome. For example: “Keep the task form fields and API behavior unchanged; adjust the drawer layout so Save remains reachable at the supported mobile viewport.”

Review the resulting diff and test the affected interaction. If feedback changes the approved behavior, update the design or requirements so later work has a consistent source of truth. The goal is a usable implementation of the agreed design, with intentional adaptations that reviewers can understand.