Ducts drop from the roof units to the ground floor, but the ground-floor HVAC plan is blank.
The drawings for a two-storey laboratory annex linked to an existing hospital by a bridge were read across architecture, ceilings, HVAC, storm drainage, fire extinguishers, fire alarm, security and data, and several systems are drawn at different levels, by different routes or not at all.
Hospital laboratory annex
Architectural plans, sections and elevations, ceiling plans and details, HVAC, storm drainage, lighting, fire extinguisher, fire alarm, CCTV, access control, voice and data, and audio and video drawings for a hospital laboratory annex, read against one another and the building and workplace safety regulations the review cited.
What the review compared
The review read one drawing package for a two-storey laboratory annex joined to an existing hospital by a bridge: architectural plans, sections, facade sections and elevations, ceiling plans and details, the HVAC layout, storm drainage plans, the lighting study, the fire extinguisher plans and the fire alarm, CCTV, access control, voice and data, and audio and video drawings, including the routes that connect the annex to the hospital. Its instructions asked for missing or inconsistent information across disciplines, the information needed for permitting, pricing and construction, and document health issues such as missing sheets and broken references. Code checking was enabled, so egress doors, accessibility, stairs and extinguishers were also read against the building and workplace safety regulations the review cited.
Where the disciplines part ways
Levels are the common thread. The HVAC and drainage sheets put the roof slab above the level the architectural plans and sections give, the storm drainage plan states its inverts on a different datum from its own floor levels, and the exterior grade and a toilet floor differ from the architectural plan. The roof plan gives one parapet a level below the upper floor, and general notes repeated across the consultant sheets state levels in two different units. The ground-floor HVAC plan is blank although ducts drop to it. The links to the hospital are routed differently on different sheets or not drawn at all, and two cable schedules describe cabling the system does not use. The bridge slabs are still marked pending, and an exit door, a doorway step, the toilet door, a missing handrail and extinguisher spacing raise permit questions.
What to verify next
The architect should fix the roof, floor and exterior levels and the north point, and every consultant should redraw from that base. The HVAC engineer needs to complete the ground-floor plan and equipment schedule, the drainage designer needs to restate the inverts on the building datum, and the low-voltage designer needs to draw each link to the hospital once, with its cable. Examples that cite a requirement follow the regulations the review cited; every example is a question for the responsible designer and the authority having jurisdiction.
14 selected examples from the review
Fourteen distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Ground-floor HVAC plan is blank
Roof unit and exhaust ducts drop to the ground floor; its HVAC plan view is empty.
Why it matters: Ground-floor ducts, outlets and exhaust cannot be priced or built.
What to check: Draw the ground-floor ductwork, outlets and airflows.
MechanicalRoof slab set at two levels
HVAC and drainage sheets set the roof slab higher than the architectural plans and sections.
Why it matters: Equipment bases and roof drains would follow different slab levels.
What to check: Confirm one roof level and correct every sheet.
Architectural · Mechanical · PlumbingStorm inverts on a different datum
Manhole covers and inverts carry negative levels beside positive floor levels on one sheet.
Why it matters: Excavation depths and cover levels cannot be set.
What to check: Give inverts on the building datum, or note the benchmark.
PlumbingCollector arrives below the manhole outlet
The last storm collector reaches its manhole lower than the manhole floor and outlet.
Why it matters: The final run cannot drain by gravity as drawn.
What to check: Lower the manhole and outlet, or regrade the collector.
PlumbingAlarm link to the hospital routed two ways
Two fire alarm sheets route the link differently, and neither shows the vertical run.
Why it matters: The installer cannot price or trace the interconnection.
What to check: Unify the route and draw the riser.
Fire ProtectionNetwork link scheduled as power cable
The network link sheet’s legend and cable schedule describe power cabling, not data cable.
Why it matters: The link cannot be priced, and power cable could be ordered.
What to check: Schedule the data cable type and count.
ElectricalMagnetic-lock doors miss two cables
Runs to magnetic-lock doors omit the lock power and door sensor cables the legend defines.
Why it matters: Access control wiring would be priced incomplete.
What to check: Add both cables and recheck conduit size.
ElectricalBridge exit door narrow and unrated
The upper-floor exit to the bridge is a plain glass door below the cited width.
Why it matters: The door would need replacing for the permit.
What to check: Specify the cited width and fire rating.
ArchitecturalStep at a ground-floor exit door
The sidewalk outside one exit door sits below the floor, with no ramp.
Why it matters: The cited rules require one level on both sides.
What to check: Match the levels or add a dimensioned ramp.
ArchitecturalOnly toilet door swings inward
The building’s only toilet opens inward; the cited rules require an accessible outward swing.
Why it matters: The building would lack a compliant accessible toilet.
What to check: Swing the door outward and dimension its width.
ArchitecturalFreezer room too far from an extinguisher
Travel from the freezer room to the nearest extinguisher exceeds the cited limit.
Why it matters: The extinguisher plan fails a distance the permit checks.
What to check: Add an extinguisher inside the room.
Fire ProtectionBridge slabs left pending
Both bridge slabs are labelled specification pending; no sheet gives their system or thickness.
Why it matters: The slabs and their bearings cannot be priced or built.
What to check: Define system, thickness and material on a structural sheet.
Architectural · StructuralStair has no handrail
The only stair is walled on both sides, with no handrail drawn or detailed.
Why it matters: The cited standard requires a handrail here.
What to check: Draw the handrails and add a detail.
ArchitecturalNorth arrows point three ways
Architectural, fire protection and low-voltage plans each point north differently.
Why it matters: Elevation names and orientation references are unreliable.
What to check: Set true north and align every family.
Architectural · Fire Protection · ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire Protection, and Structural
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 November 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.