The standard is a management system, not a modelling guide
ISO 19650 says almost nothing about geometry. It is concerned with who produces information, when it is required, what state it is in, and who has approved it. Teams that read it expecting modelling rules come away disappointed and conclude it is bureaucratic. Teams that read it as a procurement and governance framework find it immediately useful.
Information requirements come before the execution plan
The most common sequencing error is writing a BIM Execution Plan before anyone has articulated what decisions the information is meant to support. The Exchange Information Requirements are the client's document, not the delivery team's. If they arrive as a generic template, the BEP written from them will be generic too.
Status codes are the part that changes behaviour
Naming conventions get the attention, but suitability codes do the real work. Once every container carries an explicit state — work in progress, shared, published, archived — the question 'is this the current version?' stops being a matter of opinion. That single change removes most version disputes on a project.
Auditing is what makes it real
A standard nobody checks is a suggestion. Regular, scheduled audits with a written report are what separate a project that is compliant from one that has a compliant document sitting in a folder. Monthly is usually enough; quarterly is too slow to catch drift.