This study critically examines the constructability and behavioral validity of inter-frame bracing provisions prescribed in Iranian seismic regulations when applied to buildings with integrated façades and continuous interior finishes. While inter-frame bracing is theoretically intended to enhance lateral resistance without compromising structural independence, its practical implementation often conflicts with architectural continuity and execution constraints. Using a qualitative–analytical framework, the research systematically evaluates regulatory assumptions, reconstructs representative execution scenarios, and assesses deviations between intended and effective seismic behavior. The results demonstrate that continuous architectural systems suppress deformation mechanisms required for seismic separation, leading to unintended structural coupling and altered load paths. The findings reveal that these deviations are systemic rather than incidental, arising from a misalignment between regulatory abstraction and constructability realities. The study concludes that seismic reliability cannot be ensured through analytical rigor alone and must explicitly incorporate constructability as a governing criterion. By reframing inter-frame bracing through a constructability-based lens, the research provides an evidence-driven foundation for refining seismic provisions to better align design intent with realizable performance.