Doors on a signed assembly exit route have no panic hardware.
The renovation set leaves gaps in assembly room egress, new accessible fixtures and the structure under a leveled floor.
Classroom renovation life safety
Architectural, structural and electrical renovation drawings for classrooms, nursing rooms and an assembly room in an existing building.
What the review compared
The review followed the code plan’s occupant loads and exits into the door schedule, hardware and electrical demolition, and traced the new nursing room and toilet fixtures from the plans into the enlarged elevations and accessibility diagrams.
Where the renovation needs answers
One assembly room exit loses its sign and other exit doors lack panic hardware. New sinks and a grab bar fall short of the accessibility requirements the review checked, and the structural sheets leave the new pier footings and floor leveling undefined.
What to verify next
The architect and engineers should confirm the exit hardware and signage, the accessible fixtures and the footing design before bidding. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers and the building official.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Assembly exit doors lack panic hardware
Doors on a signed exit route from the assembly room have no panic hardware scheduled.
Why it matters: Occupants may not get the required panic release.
What to check: Schedule panic hardware on the doors along that route.
Architectural · ElectricalAn assembly room exit loses its sign
Demolition removes the exit sign at one assembly room exit and shows no replacement.
Why it matters: That exit would be unmarked after the work.
What to check: Show a new or retained exit sign at the door.
Electrical · ArchitecturalNew nursing room sinks have no knee clearance
New sinks in two nursing rooms sit over closed base cabinets.
Why it matters: A wheelchair user cannot pull under either sink.
What to check: Detail knee clearance at each sink or document an exception.
ArchitecturalNew pier footings have no embedment depth
New pier bases are drawn on the crawlspace surface with no depth below undisturbed ground.
Why it matters: Built as drawn, they would bear on surface soil.
What to check: Dimension the footing depth below undisturbed ground.
StructuralSink knee clearance is dimensioned as a maximum
The accessible sink diagram labels the knee-clearance height as a maximum rather than a minimum.
Why it matters: A sink installed to the label could sit too low.
What to check: Correct the dimension to a minimum.
ArchitecturalCeiling and lighting plans count fixtures differently
The ceiling and lighting plans show different fixture counts in four spaces.
Why it matters: Fixtures and the ceiling layout cannot be priced reliably.
What to check: Coordinate one fixture layout on both plans.
Architectural · ElectricalFire alarm riser includes sprinkler switches
The riser calls for flow and tamper switch connections, but the code data lists no sprinklers.
Why it matters: Bidders may price devices that do not exist.
What to check: Confirm the sprinkler status and revise the riser.
Electrical · ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Electrical, 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.