The point: Isaiah Armstrong did not pour the slabs to any of the specifications in the contract.
Concrete Patio Not Built to Customer Specifications
The patio was not poured to customer specifications.
Figure 4. The slope of the concrete slab poured by Isaiah Armstrong much larger than the 2% minimum slope mandated by code. It instead follows the natural slope of the ground. While there is no maximum specified in the code, as I measured it, the slope is 4.45% over the course of 15 feet. This is at the very top end of what would be considered acceptable in most cases for a patio and is noticeable when standing on it. It is closer to a ramp.
Moreover, as mentioned above, the first couple feet are either zero or negatively sloped, resulting in a "crown" that causes the patio beyond that point to fall at a much larger rate making it look and feel much steeper. While a slope of 4.45% does not constitute a violation of code, it represents a large enough slope to make it completely unusable for its intended purpose as a patio.
It was communicated to Isaiah Armstrong during the initial consultation on May 4, 2021 that I expected the slab to be level, and that the ground would need to be slightly leveled to accommodate it either through digging or through gravel. This was communicated again to a subcontractor Isaiah Armstrong sent out on May 22nd, 2021, before the contract was signed on May 23rd, 2021. At no time was it discussed with me that the slab would follow the slope of the land. I expected, as any reasonable person would expect a patio to be, a flat slab with a minimum 2% slope.
When I originally contacted Isaiah Armstrong about this project, he wanted the top of the slab to be even with the existing patio, which is 6 inches above grade. When it was clear that this could not be accommodated due to the presence of weep holes, I indicated that I would be willing to accept a 4-inch slab, but that it was expected that the specifications would otherwise remain the same, including a reasonable 2% slope.
