The code data calls a building with a second-floor suite a one-storey building.
Two issues of the permit set were reviewed. The code data, fire separations and foundation details did not agree with the drawings.
Farm shop with a dwelling unit
Architectural and structural permit drawings and a code data matrix for a farm shop and storage building with a second-floor dwelling unit.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural and structural sheets with the code data matrix, following fire separations, the dwelling unit, alarms and foundations through notes, schedules, plans and details. Another issue of the set, with the code matrix on the drawings, was reviewed a few days later.
Where the set falls short
In the first issue, the code data described a one-storey building with no dwelling, and the wall and window around the suite lacked rated construction. The second issue’s matrix recorded two storeys but marked the fire alarm not required, and a roll door opened the repair shop separation.
What to verify next
The designer should complete the code data, detail every rated wall, door and window around the repair shop and the suite, and reconcile the footing schedule with the details before permit. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designer and the building official.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings from two issues of the set, summarized for professional verification.
Repair shop separation is not detailed
Notes require a one-hour separation at the repair shop; the scheduled wall has no rated board.
Why it matters: The framer has no rated assembly to build.
What to check: Assign a rated wall carried to the roof.
ArchitecturalWindow in the dwelling wall is unrated
A kitchenette window sits in the rated wall between the dwelling and the shop.
Why it matters: Fire could reach the dwelling through it.
What to check: Specify a fixed rated window or remove it.
ArchitecturalCode data omits the dwelling storey
The notes call it a one-storey building; the plans show a second-floor suite.
Why it matters: Fire alarm requirements cannot be confirmed.
What to check: Correct the storey count and the matrix.
ArchitecturalEnd-wall pier footing has two sizes
The schedule and the detail give the end-wall pier footing different widths.
Why it matters: The footing could be poured too narrow.
What to check: Confirm one size in schedule, plan and detail.
StructuralAlarms and emergency lights are not located
Legends define smoke alarms, CO alarms and emergency lights that no plan places.
Why it matters: The installer and inspector have no locations.
What to check: Place each device on the plans.
Architectural · ElectricalRoof plan cites details not in the set
Truss notes reference an unissued sheet, a wrong detail and a placeholder number.
Why it matters: Key roof connections have no detail.
What to check: Add the details and fix the references.
StructuralFire alarm is marked not required
In the second issue, the code matrix lists two storeys but marks no fire alarm.
Why it matters: A required alarm system may be omitted.
What to check: Provide the system or justify a mezzanine.
Architectural · ElectricalRoll door breaks the shop separation
The second issue places a large roll door in the repair shop separation without a rating.
Why it matters: The separation has an unprotected opening.
What to check: Specify a rated closure for the opening.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, and Electrical
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.