I get involved in reviewing deck construction quite regularly. It would be very handy to have a pole/pier footing module that can handle various options such as: precast concrete piers (both round and square), Diamond Pier, helical anchors, Big Foot, etc., and even a field-built square concrete pier that doesn’t require all the ACI rebar checks.
For the manufactured and helical type options, the user could simply enter a manual load rating based on product literature or test data on site. Square pier options would be just like the round type, but with a different area calculation. Sometimes, I call for a 12" sonotube but ask to have the bottom 12" dug out to a larger diameter. That’s another option.
Currently, the only option I have is to use the pole footing calc and then add notes in the comments section to explain why the calculation isn’t actually representative of the real world.
Hello again, James, 
Thanks for the detailed breakdown, really helpful context.
To be straight with you: the Pole Footing sheet today is a prismatic plain concrete pier to IBC/ACI 318. It handles bearing, flexure, and shear for a rectangular or round embedded post, and that’s about it. No bell/enlarged base, no proprietary systems (Diamond Pier, helical, Bigfoot-style), and no path to plug in a manufacturer-rated capacity and have that govern instead of the full ACI checks.
So yes, the comment-to-explain-the-model workaround you’ve been using is basically the honest approach given what the sheet can do right now.
I’ve logged a feature request for a richer pier/deck footing module — square vs round geometry, enlarged base options, simplified plain pier workflows, and rated-capacity inputs for manufactured solutions. No timeline to give you, but the deck review use case is well understood and this is useful ammo for the team.