Four exit doors have openings so low that the frame leaves less than the required clear height.
The design notes, site plan and drawings for four small hospital support buildings give different answers on doors, roofs, finishes and fire access.
Hospital support buildings
Architectural drawings and design notes for a hospital campus’s support buildings: a substation and generator room, a morgue, an oxygen manifold room and a waste building.
What the review compared
The review read the general design notes, the site plan and the drawings for four hospital support buildings together. It compared door and window schedules with plans and sections, finish tables with fire requirements, and the site plan with the notes on fire access.
Where the documents disagree
Exit door openings leave less clear height than the code requires, and the generator room finish is below the fire class the notes themselves set. The roof build-up, fire lane distances, wall finishes and fire water tank are each described two or three ways.
What to verify next
The architect should raise the exit door openings, choose one roof build-up and reconcile the notes with the site plan before the set goes to plan review. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Exit doors fall short of clear height
Four exit door openings are exactly 2.1 m high, so the frame cuts the clear height.
Why it matters: Clear height falls below the code minimum.
What to check: Raise the openings and update the schedules.
ArchitecturalRoof waterproofing is given three ways
The design notes give different membranes, insulation positions and joint spacings for one roof.
Why it matters: Roofing cannot be bought or sequenced.
What to check: Choose one roof build-up.
ArchitecturalGenerator room paint is below the fire class
The finish schedule lists a lower fire-class paint for generator room and morgue walls.
Why it matters: The finish misses the noncombustible requirement.
What to check: Specify a noncombustible-class finish.
Architectural · Fire ProtectionFire lane is closer than the notes say
The notes keep fire lanes over 5 m from buildings; the plan scales under 3 m.
Why it matters: Fire review may require changes.
What to check: Move the road or correct the notes.
Architectural · Civil · Fire ProtectionInsulation thickness refers to a missing report
Roof insulation thickness points to an energy report the set does not contain.
Why it matters: Insulation cannot be priced.
What to check: State the thickness or add the report.
ArchitecturalWall finish locations are blank
The exterior finish table leaves locations blank, and its tile height differs from the elevations.
Why it matters: Render and tile quantities are unknown.
What to check: Fill in locations and set one height.
ArchitecturalFire water tank has two forms
The site plan shows a prefabricated buried tank; the waterproofing notes describe a concrete tank.
Why it matters: Tank construction and cost are unsettled.
What to check: Choose one tank type.
Architectural · PlumbingReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Civil, Fire Protection, Plumbing, 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.