Well, we try to have those all the time.
One I have all the time is to limit piping on the course to enforce every other day watering as the max they can achieve........They won't do it. And, I can kind of agree with the reason - usually at grow in you need double the capacity, unless the owner clearly understands that grow in will take an extra year. Then, we do the math on the cost of a 16" mainline and 3000 GPM pump vs. a 2000 GPM pump and 12" main, or whatever it comes out. Even at the extra $200K, the cost of the second year is usually higher in terms of lost revenues, starting the payback of the loan, etc.
Other discussions center on whether we can use temporary, moveable quick couplers in outer areas. Again, the labor of such is probably as high as just putting some sprinklers out there, perhaps on manual or lesser control to keep cost down, and then, they still have them. (and we hope they only turn them on once a week to once a month) In the end, if you have torn up natives to grade and replant, it ends up you need a sprinkler there (at least in southern climates) and hope they don't get overused.
Now, up north this year, I did talk it over with the superintendent and we went back from triple to double row. Some of my other MN courses watered pretty wide, but they had sand caps, and the edges came out dry if the sprinklers were too far from the woods line. Here, the soil was different, and for various reasons, we couldn't clear quite as wide, so we went down on the sprinklers after careful discussion with superintendent and irrigation designer.
The part to part at the greens is always a discussion we have. And, I try to walk the irrigation designers staking after it is done to make sure it fits the way we envision grass lines, natives, etc. which aren't always obvious to the irrigation crew in the dirt. As to coverage in main areas, we just don't get far off of perfect spacing and allowance to replace ET every week at least, usually every night (which I strongly disagree with)
They just get too many complaints from users that they "didn't pipe it big enough" later on. You might say its easy for the owner to demand more water later on that we tried to limit, or that the supers don't really understand the programming and sometimes over water. But, the other takeaway is that the architect should probably have more discussions with the super than the irrigation designer. But then, after construction, we aren't there very often and other factors may creep in, and those discussions forgotten.