In AC25 5010 openings can be placed with a renovation status that is incongruous with that of the associated element. So an opening with new status can be placed in a wall with demolish status and an opening with status existing/demo can be placed in a wall with status new.
Is this really correct behaviour? In contrast doors and windows inherits the status from the associated wall if and when incongruity arise.
I don't see how the fact that openings can have different types of associated elements should make it very difficult to have the associated element override the renovation status of the opening. So openings that only cut one element seem straight forward.
But yes, openings can cut multiple elements which in turn can have different renovation statuses and the current solution sort of allows for this to play out, but I would say that it is too messy to be acceptable.
For example, a new element associated with an existing opening will be shown without the opening on a renovation filter that only shows new elements.
It also seem to lead to strangeness regarding the element information. I don't know the technicalities behind that but if with the plan set so that it doesn't show both the opening and associated element then the element information in any view that shows both will be incorrect. The screenshots is of a new slab and existing opening shown as existing plan in the plan view and as planned status in the 3D view. Although the opening is correctly shown in the 3D view, the opening is not accounted for in the element information.
So the question becomes - what is the association relationship really about? Does it indicate that the opening is a part of the element or is it just a means of placing the opening? If it is part of the element, why doesn't it show? If it is not part of the element, wouldn't the correct solution be to have openings as independent elements? It seems like the developers couldn't decide and ended up halfway between.
I find it worrying to see such an issue with a relatively new tool (AC23) and it is hard not to see it as an indication of a piecemeal approach to the development of AC which I believe is starting to really take its toll, both on the application and its current users.