Framing members changed from the permit set, and the revision lists are blank.
The construction documents changed walls, framing and doors from the permit set, and several sheets were not updated to match.
Apartment permit to construction set
Permit and construction document sets for two wood-framed apartment buildings, architectural and structural, compared issue to issue.
What the review compared
The review read the construction documents for both buildings beside the permit set they replaced. Its instructions asked what changed, whether related sheets, schedules and details were updated with it, and whether earlier requirements were left behind.
Where the changes stopped
Wall types, framing members and door sizes changed between the two issues, often with no revision mark. Notes, typical details and unit plans still carry the permit-set version, and the structural sheets give two roof dead loads.
What to verify next
The design team should issue a list of revisions from the permit set and correct the notes and details that still describe the old work before framing is bought. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the architect and structural engineer.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Shear wall note keeps the old sheathing
Wall types changed to sheathing plus insulation; a structural note still requires nailbase panels.
Why it matters: Sheathing cannot be bought to one specification.
What to check: Confirm the sheathing and revise the note.
Architectural · StructuralTwo roof dead loads
Truss notes design roof trusses for 25 psf dead load; the loading plan gives 40.
Why it matters: Truss quotes cannot be compared.
What to check: Confirm the load and correct one sheet.
StructuralHold-down posts have no anchor rods
Three hold-down posts on the framing plan have no anchor on the foundation plans.
Why it matters: Foundations could be placed without them.
What to check: Add the anchors or state none are needed.
StructuralStair doors carry three ratings
Stair doors are 45 minutes in the schedule, 90 by type, 60 on life safety plans.
Why it matters: The doors cannot be ordered to one rating.
What to check: Set one rating and correct the others.
ArchitecturalFraming changed without revision marks
Stair, floor and roof framing members changed from the permit set; revision lists are blank.
Why it matters: A takeoff from the permit set is wrong.
What to check: Price from the new set and request the revision list.
StructuralTypical detail keeps a steel beam
Sections changed the bay beam to engineered lumber; the typical bay detail still shows steel.
Why it matters: The beam falls in two trades’ scope.
What to check: Revise the typical detail to match.
Architectural · StructuralCloset still drawn as a pair
The schedule changed a closet door to one leaf; one unit plan still draws a pair.
Why it matters: The framed opening differs by about two feet.
What to check: Redraw the opening or add a schedule row.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural and Structural
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.
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.