What 36 findings looked like in a twelve-sheet home addition
A small permit set is not a simple one. This review of a twelve-sheet residential addition returned 36 potential findings, most of them things the set never said rather than things it said wrongly.
Project details have been anonymized. Findings are potential issues for professional verification, not final code or engineering conclusions.
Counts describe this anonymized review only. They do not establish the source project's compliance, safety, or final issue disposition.
Accessible home addition
A twelve-sheet residential addition permit set covering a new entry ramp, an accessible bathroom, a shed-roof connection to the existing house, and a heat pump with energy recovery.
Twelve sheets carried the whole project
Site plan, floor plan, elevations, an enlarged bathroom, and details had to describe the addition on their own, with no consultant set behind them.
Most findings were absences, not errors
The set rarely said something wrong. It repeatedly said nothing at all: no code edition, no wall plate height, no pier depth, no partition type.
Accessibility depends on dimensions that were missing
A turning circle that is never dimensioned and grab bars with no mounting heights cannot be checked by anyone, in or out of the office.
6 selected findings from the review
6 of the 36 potential findings, ordered by severity. The wording is the review's own, with every project identifier removed.
The entry ramp's width is dimensioned nowhere, and the guard drawn along it is never specified
A1.2's FLOOR PLAN draws a ramp running east between the shed and the house, annotated only "1:12", "SLOPE", "DN" and "LOCATION OF RAMP ENDING DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS". A1.0's SITE PLAN calls it "~100SF WOOD FRAMED RAMP ON PIERS, TYP.", and A1.1's "4 Shed and Ramp Framing" names its members, "(2) 2X12 P.T. RAMP STRINGERS", "2X6 P.T. @ 16" O.C." and "4x4 P.T. POSTS - USE SIMPSON TIE TO SONOTUBE", with no dimension at all. No sheet gives the ramp a width. A guard is drawn on both sides of the ramp in plan and along it on A2.0's "2 N Elevation" and "4 S Elevation", with posts and horizontal rails, but it is never labelled or specified, and
Why it matters: The slope is set and the lower end is expressly left to site grade, but the ramp width and the guard do not depend on grade and are given nowhere. COVER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS item 1 says "Do not scale drawings, use written dimensions & notations only", so the carpenter has to ask for both or invent them.
What to check: Dimension the ramp's clear width and its top end at the house door on A1.2's FLOOR PLAN. Specify the guard on A2.0 or on A1.1's "4 Shed and Ramp Framing": height, post size and spacing, infill, and its fixing to the ramp framing.
ArchitecturalThe cover requires stamped truss engineering, and no sheet gives the loads it would be designed to
COVER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS item 5 makes the GC responsible for "submitting all structural specifications as indicated in plans by structural engineer, including stamped engineering drawings for manufactured structural components if required, and submitting them to SCS for review prior to ordering and/or purchasing". A3.1's "3 Wall Section at Roof" names the roof structure "METAL PLATE CONNECTED TRUSSES", so the trusses are what that submittal covers. No ground or roof snow load and no design wind speed or exposure is printed on any of the twelve sheets. A2.0's "4 S Elevation" also dashes a "PV ZONE - SIZE/LOCATION TBD" across the south roof, a
Why it matters: The truss supplier's engineer has no criteria to design to and SCS has none to review the stamped drawings against, so the loads end up chosen by whoever prices the trusses. A PV array added later may fall outside whatever design they chose.
What to check: Print the design loads on A1.1 or A3.1: ground and roof snow load, ultimate design wind speed and exposure, and a dead-load allowance for the PV zone. The architect of record sets them; the truss supplier's engineer signs the truss design against them.
ArchitecturalA5.0 names the heat pump and the ERV and gives neither a capacity, a duct route nor an outdoor termination
A5.0 ELECTRIC & HVAC PLANS labels the building's two pieces of mechanical equipment and nothing more. "AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMP WALL MOUNT AHU" leads to the indoor head against the east wall, and a box marked "ERV" (energy recovery ventilator) in the utility closet carries a "POWER TO ERV" leader. No capacity, model or airflow figure is printed on any sheet. No outdoor condensing unit, pad, lineset route or condensate line is drawn on A5.0, on either site plan on A1.0, on A1.2 or on any A2.0 elevation, and neither ERV termination appears on A1.1's Roof Plan or on an elevation. A3.1 already treats both as finished work: its BLOWER DOOR TEST SCHEDU
Why it matters: The building's only heat source and its only ventilator cannot be sized, priced or inspected, and the site plan reserves no space or clearance for the outdoor unit. The siding and air-barrier trades have no wall penetrations to flash and seal against the air-tightness target the same set commits to.
What to check: Add a mechanical schedule on A5.0 giving both units' make, model, capacity and airflow, and draw the lineset and duct routes with their wall and roof terminations, the condensate line and the ERV control. Locate the outdoor unit on A1.0 SITE PLAN and on the elevation it faces. The mechanical designer sets the capacities; the drawings stil
ElectricalNo building code edition, energy code or climate zone is stated anywhere in the set
The set makes three code statements and no more. COVER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS item 8 asks for work "consistent with all applicable building, zoning and fire codes"; A1.2 GENERAL PROJECT NOTES item 3 says "All work shall be done in strict accordance with all state and local codes and ordinances."; and A5.0 ELECTRICAL LEGEND note 4 says "OUTLETS IN LOFT PER CODE." None of them names a code, an edition or a compliance path. The set does print performance numbers, such as "BLOWN IN CELLULOSE INS. R-60, MIN." on A3.1 and "2.0 Air Changes per Hour (ACH) maximum" under AIR SEALING REQUIREMENT, but never says which energy code or climate zone they sati
Why it matters: A plan reviewer has nothing to check the drawings against and will ask for the code edition and the energy compliance path before reviewing the set, which means a resubmittal. The blanket wording also passes the whole code question to the contractor at bid time, so every bidder prices a different reading of "all applicable codes".
What to check: Add a code block to the cover: applicable building code and edition, energy code and compliance path, climate zone, use group and construction type. The architect of record sets these; the building department confirms the edition in force at the permit date.
ArchitecturalA1.1 calls for sonotube piers on a flared footing, and no sheet gives the pier depth, the footing size or the reinforcement
A1.1's "1 Foundation" calls the six piers up as "10" SONOTUBE ON FLAIR FOOTING REINFORED" "W/ #4 REBAR-ALIGN CENTER OF SONOTUBE W/ EDGE OF FOUNDATION", with no bottom-of-pier depth, no flared footing diameter or thickness and no bar arrangement. A3.1's "2 Wall Section at Shed" is the only section cut through a pier; it labels "10" REINFORCED SONOTUBE", draws the tube with a break symbol and a flared base, and carries no dimension at all. The house frost wall beside it is fully dimensioned on A3.1's "1 Wall Section at Foundation", so the piers are the only foundation element in the set left without a depth or a footing size.
Why it matters: The six piers carry the shed, its roof, the entry landing and the head of the ramp. Without an embedment depth the inspector cannot sign off the pier holes and they can be poured shallower than the house wall beside them, and without a footing size there is no bearing area to check.
What to check: Dimension the bottom of the pier and the flared footing's diameter, thickness and reinforcement on A3.1's "2 Wall Section at Shed", and cross-refer that detail from A1.1's "1 Foundation". The architect of record sets the depth; the building department's frost depth governs if the drawings do not settle it.
ArchitecturalA2.0 calls for a wall to close the gap between the shed roof and the house, and it is on no plan
A2.0's "3 E Elevation" prints "BUILD WALL TO CLOSE OPEN SPACE" with its leader in the triangular gap where the shed roof meets the house gable. That wall appears on no plan in the set, and no sheet gives it a size, framing, insulation, cladding or finish. A1.1's "2 Roof Framing" describes the same junction in words, "SHED ROOF FRAMED OVER THE TOP OF HOUSE ROOF SHEATHING", and none of A3.1's three wall sections is cut there. So the junction is written about on two sheets and drawn in section on none.
Why it matters: A wall that closes the building envelope is called for on an elevation and appears in no plan, section or schedule, so it is in nobody's price and nobody's scope. It sits directly over the shed roof, which is the hardest place on the building to build after the roofing is on.
What to check: Draw and dimension the infill wall on A1.1's "2 Roof Framing" and specify its framing, insulation and cladding. Add a section through the shed-to-house roof junction on A3.1.
ArchitecturalHow the findings were distributed
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural and Electrical
The review returned 32 architectural and 4 electrical potential findings.
3 higher-priority findings to investigate first
The review assigned 3 high, 24 medium, 9 low severity ratings. Severity indicates potential impact if a finding is confirmed.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this anonymized project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
36 questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced 36 potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination and completeness questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
A real review with project identifiers removed
The customer gave permission to publish this review content. The case study retains the review findings and aggregate results while removing details that identify the project or its participants.
- No address or location
- No project name
- No client or firm names
- No personnel
- No jurisdiction
About this review
Is this a real review?
Yes. These findings come from a Groundbook review completed in September 2026. The customer gave permission to publish the review content. Every project identifier has been removed: no client, firm, address, jurisdiction, project name, or personnel.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available, and you can upload your own codebooks as reference files.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report walks through selected findings with their sources and the questions to verify.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or read more reviews from completed projects.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.