Fixed bedroom windows. No escape opening shown.
The review flags a bedroom escape opening, an alarm location and a conflicting portal-frame header.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Home escape openings and alarms
Residential plans, window schedules, framing details and alarm layouts.
What the review covered
Residential plans, window schedules, framing details and alarm layouts.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Bedroom escape opening is missing
One bedroom has only fixed glazing and no exterior door.
Why it matters: The cited escape-opening requirement may be unmet.
What to check: Verify and detail the required escape opening.
ArchitecturalHigher foyer has no smoke alarm
The foyer ceiling is higher than the bedroom hall, but only the hall shows an alarm.
Why it matters: Alarm placement may not meet the cited requirement.
What to check: Check the ceiling-level rule and update the layout.
Electrical · Life SafetyHeader sizes conflict
The framing plan specifies a shallower header than the referenced portal-frame detail.
Why it matters: The intended framing is unclear.
What to check: Coordinate the header size and detail.
StructuralPortal-frame holdowns conflict
Plan symbols specify different holdowns from the braced-wall schedule.
Why it matters: The required anchorage is unclear.
What to check: Coordinate the holdown types across plans and schedules.
StructuralBraced-wall panels are too short
Drawn bracing segments are shorter than the minimum for their scheduled method.
Why it matters: The shown segments do not meet their schedule’s minimum.
What to check: Lengthen the segments or revise the bracing method.
StructuralFoundation wall position conflicts
The foundation wall is offset from the wall shown on floor and roof plans.
Why it matters: The supporting wall alignment is unclear.
What to check: Confirm the wall position and align the plans.
Structural · ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural, Architectural, Electrical, and Civil
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, 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.