The same dental vacuum piping is specified as copper and PVC.
Architectural and plumbing schedules specify different pipe materials. Equipment ratings and ventilation figures also disagree.
Dental clinic MEP coordination
A dental tenant improvement set spanning architectural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical drawings and compliance forms.
What the review compared
The review followed equipment and utility requirements across the architectural, plumbing, mechanical and electrical sheets. The dental vacuum service had different pipe materials in two schedules, with installation notes that depended on which material was chosen.
Why the forms matter
The lighting form used room classifications that the described dental use did not support. Rooftop unit outdoor-air quantities also disagreed with the ventilation form, and water heater ratings changed between the plumbing, electrical and energy documents.
What to verify next
The responsible designers should agree the equipment selections and system requirements, then update the associated drawings and forms. Code checking was enabled alongside coordination and document-health checks.
6 selected examples from the review
Six distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Lighting form uses operating-room allowances
The lighting form applies operating-room allowances to dental treatment and imaging spaces.
Why it matters: The stated compliance result needs recalculation.
What to check: Verify room classifications and revise the lighting calculation and design as needed.
ElectricalSprinkler status conflicts with alteration notes
Project information says no sprinklers, while other notes require existing sprinkler alterations.
Why it matters: The fire-protection scope is unclear.
What to check: Confirm the building’s sprinkler status and align the scope notes.
Architectural · Fire ProtectionDental vacuum pipe materials conflict
Architecture specifies copper vacuum piping; plumbing specifies PVC for the same service.
Why it matters: Material and installation requirements disagree.
What to check: Select one material and coordinate the schedules, testing and support notes.
Plumbing · ArchitecturalGas dryer has no drawn gas supply
Equipment notes specify a gas dryer, but plumbing drawings show no gas connection.
Why it matters: The gas supply scope is undefined.
What to check: Confirm the dryer type and document its required utility connections.
Plumbing · Architectural · MechanicalScheduled outdoor air is below the form’s minimum
Rooftop unit schedules total less outdoor air than the ventilation form’s stated minimum.
Why it matters: Ventilation design and balancing targets disagree.
What to check: Reconcile the calculations and each unit’s scheduled outdoor air.
MechanicalWater heater ratings differ across disciplines
Plumbing, electrical and energy documents give the same water heater different ratings.
Why it matters: Equipment selection and electrical load calculations disagree.
What to check: Agree one rating and align the schedules, circuits and energy form.
Plumbing · ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire Protection
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
- Research an answerable clarification
Present the equipment question with both current sources and the decision needed.
- Review a changed selection
Trace an updated equipment requirement into connected documents and disciplines.
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.