The only thing that's "designed" is the bare fact that evolution is taking place. The actual evolutionary pathways themselves are not being designed. Again, I think most people can tell the difference between a process that involves design and one that doesn't. Letting something happen on its own does not.
Probably there must be an actual prior specification in addition to intent. IOW there must both a specification and a will toward implementing that specification. Do you agree?
Assuming I understand you correctly, I don't agree. I can design an object without having any intention of actually creating it, and it's still my design.
What does it mean to "let something happen on its own?" Let's get specific. In genetic programming, sample populations of randomly generated algorithms are randomly cross bred and selected for fitness. The selection function is something like "better/worse at balancing a pencil on its point." After numerous generations you end up with a program that is an unreadable mess but which is very good at balancing a pencil. Similar techniques have been used to create electronic circuits. Again you get a circuit that's "unreadable" but does the selected function very nicely. Are these algorithms and circuits designed? Were they "let happen on their own?"
I can design an object without having any intention of actually creating it, and it's still my design.
I don't think that's a direct answer to my question you excepted which is, in addition to the intention to create that object is it also necessary to exhibit a specification to convince me that it is designed?
The point you may have been addressing is a prior one in my post, namely suppose there is intent and specification. To say that some observed phenomenon is the result of that design (see, I'm accepting your terminology), doesn't there have to be causal connection from the design to the object? IOW if the object is created independently of the design, then it was not a result of that design.