We have a 1920's stucco farmhouse that needed its original slate roof removed. As part of our evaluation, we had noticed the pitch on the small roof over the front door was wrong, resulting in water runoff on the front stone steps. The roofer planned to add a piece of wood to stabilize the braces - there are no posts - thus bringing the roof higher and eliminating the poor pitch problem. In doing so, he noticed that the original braces were not flush to the wall, whether originally or through movement over time. He used a "belt" to lift the pitch, then secured it with a new arch piece, the design of which was not run by us before installation. Furthermore, there were now gaps where the braces met the wall and the wood had shifted. These he attempted to fill with putty. Lastly, he installed copper flashing not only at the wall where the porch meets the stucco but also all around the PERIMETER of the porch roof. The result is, to our eyes, awful. He claims they had to install the copper flashing around the perimeter due to manufacturer's installation instructions. I find this hard to believe as I've never seen roof flashing used in this manner. We are now concerned about the detrimental effect this may have on the resale value of our home, as well as the poor workmanship (in one case, the putty used to plug a hole is dripping out of the hole, and the hole is still there; in another, putty was used over the copper flashing in a way that looks frankly amaturish). We have not been asked to pay the final payment yet, and are not sure what we can do at this point to have this issue resolved. Would love some feedback both from aesthetic and professional viewpoints - is this fine and it just looks bad to us? Clearly the putty is poor workmanship, which we will ask be addressed, but should they have used puttyon the flashing? Or cement? What about the flashing done this way - is it necessary to have it standing up like that in front? And what is the point of nailing it to the front pieces of wood? I would think it should go under the roofing material, not standing up around the perimeter. Finally, the arch doesn't quite look righ to me. The orignial was a traditional peak. Thanks for any help. Pictures below.