The partition plan omits reinforcement shown on the structural plan.
Wall types, sheathing, roof nailing and door hardware give bidders conflicting or incomplete instructions.
Children’s center plan review
Architectural, structural, civil and building-services drawings reviewed with the project manual and supporting reports.
What the review compared
The review followed wall types from the architectural partition plan into the structural framing plan, general notes and project specifications. Some walls lost required sheathing or changed stud size between disciplines.
What bidders need to resolve
The same set gave different instructions for exterior sheathing, roof field nailing and holdown rods. Door hardware set labels also lacked the item lists needed to price them consistently.
What to verify next
The architect and structural engineer should agree the governing wall assemblies, fastening requirements and construction type. Code checking was enabled; the selected examples remain questions for the responsible designers.
6 selected examples from the review
Six distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Construction type and rating table disagree
The code analysis names Type V-A but lists unrated bearing walls and Type V-B limits.
Why it matters: The intended construction type is unresolved.
What to check: Confirm the type and align the ratings and assemblies.
ArchitecturalDoor hardware sets have no contents
The door schedule assigns hardware sets that neither drawings nor specifications define.
Why it matters: Bidders lack a common hardware scope.
What to check: Issue a schedule listing each set’s items, functions and finishes.
Architectural · SpecificationsPartition types conflict with structural walls
Some partition types omit shear-wall plywood or use smaller studs than the structural plan.
Why it matters: Wall construction instructions disagree.
What to check: Align partition types with the structural framing and sheathing requirements.
Architectural · StructuralExterior sheathing thickness conflicts
Several architectural details show thinner sheathing than the structural notes and specification require.
Why it matters: Suppliers receive different panel requirements.
What to check: Confirm the required panel and coordinate the details, notes and specification.
Architectural · Structural · SpecificationsRoof field nailing spacing conflicts
The roof diaphragm detail allows wider field nail spacing than the structural notes.
Why it matters: Framers receive different fastening instructions.
What to check: Set one intermediate-support spacing and reconcile the detail and notes.
StructuralHoldown anchor rod grades conflict
The holdown detail specifies a lower rod grade than the general structural notes.
Why it matters: Anchor procurement requirements disagree.
What to check: Confirm the grade and document any intended exception.
StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Specifications, Structural, Civil, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical, Fire Protection, and Survey
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 unresolved scope before pricing
Identify document questions and their owners before fixing the pricing baseline.
- Follow an amended requirement
Backcheck changed notes against schedules, details and the project manual.
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.