“The working time is 40 hours a week and 5 days in total. The work to be done beyond this time will be done with the mutual consent of the employer and the paid architect and is deemed to be overtime”^●1 is perhaps the most curious statement in this typical architectural contract prepared by the Chamber of Architects of Turkey. The document describes such labor conditions that it attempts to legitimize as typical through legal means. Especially as in the statement about the working hours and overtime, however, these labor conditions are anything but “typical” in reality. How does such a statement of labor measure in a contract signed by the employer and the paid architect get reflected in the real architectural practice; and, who exactly benefits from it? Overtime, disguised under “mutual” consent, consistently puts the mental and physical health of workers at stake as noncompliance with such laws themselves and exploitation have in fact become more “typical” and been normalized within the practice. What kinds of architectural cultures and practices would be possible if paperwork and practice did not hold such disparities but truly inform and amplify one another?