Architecture and structure specify different brick support systems.
The structural drawings call for steel angles and lintels. Architectural details show a different bracket system.
Senior-living exterior renovation
Architectural and structural exterior renovation drawings compared with project specifications for masonry, insulation, cladding and waterproofing.
What the review compared
The review compared architectural assemblies and envelope details with structural masonry supports and project specifications. The same brick veneer received different support systems in the two disciplines.
What the specifications leave unresolved
Drawn exterior insulation lacked corresponding product and thermal requirements. Deck waterproofing lacked a defined membrane system, while a balcony callout led to a different waterproofing build-up. Tie and flashing notes also disagreed with the masonry specification.
What to verify next
The architect and structural engineer should resolve the envelope assemblies and support details before trade pricing. Code checking was enabled, but these six examples concern coordination and specification completeness.
6 selected examples from the review
Six distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Brick support systems conflict
Structure specifies steel angles and lintels where architectural details show a bracket support system.
Why it matters: Masonry and steel pricing scopes disagree.
What to check: Select one support system and align the details.
Architectural · StructuralExterior insulation lacks product requirements
Wall assemblies require outboard insulation, but the specification covers only insulation between framing members.
Why it matters: Product selection and thermal performance are undefined.
What to check: Specify the exterior layer and coordinate its installation.
ArchitecturalColumn brick ties conflict with specifications
Column details call for corrugated ties; the specification requires adjustable two-piece veneer ties.
Why it matters: The masonry connection requirements disagree.
What to check: Align the details with the specification or document an accepted exception.
ArchitecturalFlashing upstand is below the specified height
A canopy-column detail shows a shorter membrane upstand than the masonry specification requires.
Why it matters: The flashing installation instructions disagree.
What to check: Reconcile the detail and specification for this condition.
ArchitecturalDeck waterproofing system is unspecified
The deck assembly requires a waterproofing membrane without identifying its product or layer construction.
Why it matters: Bidders may select different systems.
What to check: Specify the membrane and coordinate it with the drawn deck assembly.
ArchitecturalBalcony tag points to another membrane system
The balcony assembly specifies vinyl waterproofing, but its edge detail shows a membrane beneath pedestal pavers.
Why it matters: The balcony build-up is unclear.
What to check: Agree the assembly and correct the tag or edge detail.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural and Structural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
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
- Check reusable detail assumptions
Keep approved details and receiving project conditions linked.
- Coordinate masonry documents
Follow wall identities, material assumptions and receiving details through the package.
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.