Two second-floor bedrooms have only windows smaller than the residential code’s emergency escape opening.
The architectural pricing set for a two-story custom home was read with its interior finish schedule, and several items bidders need to price, buy and permit the house are missing or disagree.
Custom home pricing set
Architectural pricing drawings for a two-story custom home with a pool, an elevator and a catwalk, read with the interior finish schedule as a reference.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural pricing set, from the site plan to the door and window schedules and interior elevations, with the interior finish schedule uploaded as a reference. Its instructions asked for scope and pricing ambiguities, bid gaps and overlaps and the purchasing information bidders need. Code checking was enabled, so the plans were also read against the residential code and local zoning provisions the review cited.
Where the pricing will diverge
The structural, civil and landscape drawings the set depends on are not in it, and the pool, the elevator, the catwalk and the removal of an existing house have no drawings. The elevations and the finish schedule disagree on window operation, shower tile and wall paneling, and most stone, tile, paint and millwork entries give no product. Two bedroom windows, the stair headroom and the garage door raise code questions that could change the design at permit review.
What to verify next
Bidders should send these questions before pricing, and the architect should issue the missing disciplines, complete the finish schedule and answer the code questions in one revision. Examples that cite a requirement follow the residential code and zoning provisions the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible professionals.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Bedroom windows too small for escape
Two second-floor bedrooms have only scheduled single-hung windows below the code’s escape opening.
Why it matters: Window size, type or count would change at permit review.
What to check: Give each bedroom a code-sized escape window and update the schedule.
ArchitecturalStair headroom is short
A section shows the upper floor edge crossing the stair, leaving about six feet of headroom.
Why it matters: The stair or floor opening would change at permit review.
What to check: Move the floor edge or rearrange the stair.
Architectural · StructuralGarage door is a louvered MDF door
The house-to-garage door is scheduled as MDF with false louvers and no rating.
Why it matters: It would not meet the code’s garage separation requirement.
What to check: Schedule a door type the code allows there.
ArchitecturalStructural drawings are not in the set
Wall sections send footings, beams, masonry and trusses to structural drawings the set omits.
Why it matters: The structure cannot be priced from this set.
What to check: Add the structural drawings, or state the basis bidders carry.
Architectural · StructuralPool and deck have no pricing basis
The site plan draws a pool and deck; no sheet gives depths, shell, finish or equipment.
Why it matters: The pool cannot be priced or assigned to a trade.
What to check: Provide pool drawings, a scope or an allowance.
ArchitecturalShower wall tile is ceramic or stone
An elevation notes ceramic wall tile; the finish schedule lists polished stone for that shower.
Why it matters: Bidders cannot tell which tile and labor to carry.
What to check: Choose one and correct the other document.
ArchitecturalWindows are double-hung or single-hung
Elevations note clad double-hung windows; the schedule lists aluminum single-hung units throughout.
Why it matters: Suppliers may quote different operation and frames.
What to check: Confirm one operation and frame on both sheets.
ArchitecturalStone and tile entries are blank
Apart from two floor tiles, the finish schedule gives stone and tile no product or color.
Why it matters: Bidders will carry different allowances for the same finishes.
What to check: Complete the entries or state an allowance for each.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Civil, Landscape, and Plumbing
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 November 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.