One footing. Two different dimensions.
Gate drawings disagree on footing sizes and column heights, and omit support for adjoining construction.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Gate and foundation coordination
Gate foundations, column schedules and adjoining architectural work.
What the review covered
Gate foundations, column schedules and adjoining architectural work.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Footing dimensions conflict
The foundation plan shows a rectangular footing; the schedule shows a square one.
Why it matters: Excavation and formwork requirements are unclear.
What to check: Coordinate the footing dimensions.
StructuralColumn heights conflict
The column schedule ends below the height stated on the plan.
Why it matters: The column-to-beam relationship is unclear.
What to check: Reconcile the column height and beam connection.
StructuralAdjoining construction lacks structural details
An adjoining room and wall lack foundations and roof-support details.
Why it matters: Their structural scope is unresolved.
What to check: Detail the supports or identify excluded work.
Structural · ArchitecturalFoundation levels are unspecified
Footings, ground beams and column necks have no governing levels or heights.
Why it matters: The foundation cannot be set out from stated levels.
What to check: Add levels and heights relative to one datum.
StructuralColumn grid positions conflict
The architectural grid passes through column centers; structural plans place it at their faces.
Why it matters: The columns have conflicting setting-out positions.
What to check: Coordinate the grid and column positions.
Architectural · StructuralBeam section is mislabeled
A section carries one beam’s label but matches another beam in the schedule.
Why it matters: The correct section for each beam is unclear.
What to check: Correct the section title and coordinate the schedule.
StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural and Architectural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority; count breakdowns are omitted for anonymity.
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 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.
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.