Plywood under the roof caps is labeled sheet metal in some details and rough carpentry in others.
Details across architectural, structural and building-services sheets give the same wood items to different trades.
High school rough carpentry scope
A full building set for a high school classroom and performance building, read for a rough carpentry subcontractor’s bid scope.
What the review compared
The review read the whole building set for one trade: rough carpentry. It looked for wood blocking, backing, plywood and platforms that the details assign to rough carpentry, and for the same items assigned to sheet metal, casework, metal framing or another trade elsewhere.
Where the scope splits
Plywood under roof caps and countertops carries two trade labels, and backing behind plaster joints is wood in some details and metal in others. A roof pump platform is drawn in wood and in concrete, and some fastener callouts cannot be built as drawn.
What to verify next
The bidder should ask the architect to assign each wood item to one trade and settle the platform and backing details before bids close. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Backing is wood in two details, metal in others
Two details call wood blocking behind plaster joints and wall letters; backing details allow only metal.
Why it matters: Trade and method are unclear.
What to check: State one backing method and trade.
Architectural · StructuralRoof cap plywood belongs to two trades
Plywood under the roof caps is labeled sheet metal in some details, rough carpentry in others.
Why it matters: It may be priced twice or not at all.
What to check: Assign it to one trade.
ArchitecturalCountertop plywood belongs to two trades
One detail gives countertop plywood to rough carpentry; another gives it to casework.
Why it matters: Both bids may carry it, or neither.
What to check: Assign it to one trade.
ArchitecturalPump platform is wood and concrete
The roof plan calls a wood pump platform; pump and pipe details anchor to concrete.
Why it matters: The wood platform may be wrongly priced.
What to check: State one platform type.
Mechanical · ArchitecturalLedge plywood has two thicknesses
Structural sections sheathe a roof-edge ledge with 1/2-inch plywood; the cap detail shows 3/4-inch.
Why it matters: The plywood cannot be ordered.
What to check: Agree one thickness.
Structural · ArchitecturalLag screws are longer than the nailer
Pipe support lags need 4 inches of embedment in a nailer about 1-1/2 inches thick.
Why it matters: The supports cannot be fastened as drawn.
What to check: Deepen the nailer or change the fastening.
Mechanical · ArchitecturalShot pins prohibited and required
A structural note prohibits shot pins at exterior studs; sections and a typical detail require them.
Why it matters: Fastener costs differ.
What to check: State the required fastener.
StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, and Telecommunications
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
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 coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 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 and completeness 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.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.