Roof condenser counts do not match the indoor equipment assignments.
Apartment labels and equipment assignments imply different heat pump quantities from the mechanical roof plan.
Apartment HVAC plan review
An apartment mechanical permit set reviewed across overall plans, enlarged unit layouts, roof plans, equipment schedules, specifications and energy documentation.
What the review compared
The review connected apartment types on the overall plans to enlarged unit layouts and scheduled indoor equipment, then compared the implied quantities with the roof condensers. Conflicting apartment references prevented a consistent equipment count.
Why schedules alone were insufficient
The roof plan used different tags for ductless units, and the energy certificate omitted scheduled systems. Common-room ventilation information was absent from the inspected plans and schedules. Unit airflow and exterior insulation requirements also differed between documents.
What to verify next
The mechanical engineer should reconcile equipment assignments, ventilation design and balancing values across the permit set. Code checking was enabled; the findings require verification against the project’s governing criteria.
6 selected examples from the review
Six distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Common-room outdoor air is not documented
The inspected common-room plans and schedules show no outdoor-air route or rate.
Why it matters: Ventilation design and pricing inputs are missing.
What to check: Document the outdoor-air design or the approved natural ventilation basis.
MechanicalRoof unit tags differ from the schedule
Ductless outdoor units use roof-plan tags that do not match their equipment schedule.
Why it matters: Matching units to equipment data requires assumptions.
What to check: Use consistent tags across the plan and schedule.
MechanicalIndoor and outdoor equipment counts disagree
Apartment assignments imply different indoor-unit quantities from the roof plan’s paired condensers.
Why it matters: Equipment ordering quantities remain unresolved.
What to check: Resolve apartment references, then reconcile the equipment counts.
MechanicalEnergy certificate omits scheduled heat pumps
The energy certificate omits heat pump systems and lists efficiencies that differ from the schedule.
Why it matters: The certificate does not represent the scheduled design.
What to check: Reissue it with coordinated equipment quantities and efficiencies.
MechanicalExterior refrigerant insulation thickness conflicts
The condensing-unit diagram specifies thinner exterior pipe insulation than the mechanical specification requires.
Why it matters: Bidders receive conflicting insulation requirements.
What to check: Agree the exterior insulation thickness and reconcile both documents.
MechanicalUnit airflows do not match the schedule
Supply totals and a return grille airflow differ from their fan coil’s scheduled airflow.
Why it matters: Air balancing targets are inconsistent.
What to check: Coordinate the outlets, return grille and equipment schedule.
MechanicalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Mechanical
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
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 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 drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
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 potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference 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.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in October 2026. Findings are summarized.
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.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Related examples and workflows
Apply this review to your project
- Review an equipment alternative
Compare selected equipment with the schedules, support and services it relies on.
- Trace the operating basis
Keep the design assumptions connected to the documented system response.
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.