Series on one sheet. Parallel on another.
Hood wiring conflicts, undersized alarm batteries and a missing power circuit surfaced in this commercial-kitchen review.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Commercial kitchen systems
Commercial-kitchen controls, electrical distribution and fire alarm drawings.
What the review covered
Commercial-kitchen controls, electrical distribution and fire alarm drawings.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Hood wiring conflicts
The electrical note specifies series wiring; the manufacturer diagrams show parallel wiring.
Why it matters: Series wiring may prevent activation when only one fire system operates.
What to check: Reconcile the note with the manufacturer’s control sequence.
Electrical · MechanicalAlarm batteries are undersized
The specified batteries fall below the calculation, which also omits loads and uses another panel model.
Why it matters: The required backup capacity remains unresolved.
What to check: Recalculate all loads for the specified panel and resize the batteries.
Fire Protection · ElectricalAlarm power circuit is missing
The alarm power supply requires a dedicated circuit absent from the electrical schedules.
Why it matters: Its power connection is unresolved.
What to check: Assign the circuit and show its connection.
Electrical · Fire ProtectionHood control power can be interrupted
The hood note feeds controls from a shunt-trip panel; manufacturer diagrams require uninterrupted power.
Why it matters: The control supply may be interrupted during suppression.
What to check: Coordinate the supply with the manufacturer’s control sequence.
Electrical · MechanicalExhaust fan responses conflict
The alarm matrix stops hood exhaust fans; the manufacturer sequence runs them during suppression.
Why it matters: The required fan response is unclear.
What to check: Reconcile the alarm matrix and hood control sequence.
Fire Protection · ElectricalGas alarm power circuit is unassigned
The gas alarm notes require an identified supply circuit absent from the electrical schedules.
Why it matters: The alarm’s power connection is unresolved.
What to check: Assign and label its supply circuit.
Electrical · Fire ProtectionReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical, Fire Protection, Mechanical, Civil, and General
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority; count breakdowns are omitted for anonymity.
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 September 2026. Findings are summarized and identifying details omitted. Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
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.