Mechanical and electrical sheets both assign the same fan control wiring.
The change order, its trade notices and the clouded sheets describe the new vestibule work differently, before the price is accepted.
Arena change order
A contemplated change order for an arena change room exit vestibule, with architectural, mechanical and electrical sheets and the trade change notices.
What the review compared
The review read the change order with the architectural, mechanical and electrical sheets reissued for it and the trade change notices. It checked what each document adds to the contract, which trade carries it, and whether the revision clouds match the written scope.
Where the package disagrees
Fan controls are assigned to both trades, and one supply fan is clouded as new on some sheets but not others. The electrical notice and plan disagree on heaters, a light and an alarm device, and the change order’s own description lines are blank.
What to verify next
The owner’s representative should ask the designers to list every change in writing, assign each device to one trade and settle the fan’s status before the change order price is accepted. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Fan control wiring assigned to both trades
Mechanical and electrical sheets each assign relocating and wiring the same fan controls.
Why it matters: Both may price the wiring, or neither.
What to check: Name one trade per device before accepting the price.
Mechanical · ElectricalOne supply fan may already be in the contract
Engineering sheets cloud a supply fan as new; the architectural cloud leaves it out.
Why it matters: The owner could pay for it twice.
What to check: State whether the fan is contract or change work.
Architectural · Mechanical · ElectricalNotice and plan describe different electrical work
The notice lists one heater and a relocated light; the plan shows two heaters.
Why it matters: Quoted work and drawings differ.
What to check: Make the notice match the plan.
ElectricalHorn/strobe relocation is not drawn
The electrical notice relocates a fire alarm horn/strobe that no drawing shows.
Why it matters: The work cannot be located or priced.
What to check: Show both locations or remove the item.
ElectricalHardware set omits sweeps and seal
The door schedule requires sweeps and a seal on a pair; its hardware set lists neither.
Why it matters: They may be missed or claimed as an extra.
What to check: Confirm the need and correct one document.
ArchitecturalChange order lists no changes
The change order’s description lines are blank, and clouds miss a new partition and opening.
Why it matters: The quote cannot be checked against written scope.
What to check: List every change, including unclouded work.
General · Architectural · MechanicalDoor stops short of its opening
The schedule requires a door to open 110°; its closer stop is set at 105°.
Why it matters: Expect an RFI or closer rework.
What to check: Set one opening angle in both documents.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.