I’m curious how shops that regularly do continuous face frame cabinets handle this particular issue.

Cabinets that have adjacent siblings share a stile in between, whereas cabinets with no siblings do not. So when drawn or specced by a designer, two cabinets that are specced to use 20” of run, but differ in the adjacent-sibling-consideration would end up with different sized doors (17” vs 17.75” assuming 1.5” stiles).

I’ve attached an image to try and help illustrate the point. In the software, I’ve added an additional 3/4” to the countertop shelving units as well as the no-adjacent-sibling cabinet (bottom left) in order to maintain consistent door/drawer widths (17.75”) and face frame vertical alignment.

Doing this in the software produces identical cut lists for both  the 20.75” and 20” cabinets’ carcasses, doors, drawers, etc, but it’s an issue that designers often miss and often isn’t accounted for in run widths.

Is this something that you all find yourself running into? If so, do you often catch it before production? Do you (or your designers) spec things differently or does your software somehow alert you to discrepancies like this?

Happy to provide additional details if this was unclear. Thanks!

A couple notes:
* Inner left/right of all cabinet carcasses register to the _inside_ of the face frames
* Remaining ~3/4” of face frame on the bottom left cabinet’s left side miters into a decorative end panel
* Remaining ~3/4” of face frame on the bottom left cabinet’s right side overhangs into appliance clearance
* Remaining ~3/4” of face frame on the bottom right cabinet’s right side is scribed to the wall

Nuanced dimensioning issue with framed inset cabinets with continuous face frames