Each controller is licensed for fewer points than its panel wires.
The wiring diagrams disagree with themselves and with the parts lists on supplies, terminals, licences and parts.
Hotel BMS control panel wiring
Direct digital control panel wiring diagrams, parts lists and panel layouts for a hotel building management system.
What the review compared
The review followed each control panel through its power distribution, module, input and output, and integration pages, then checked the parts list and panel layout against what those pages wire. Its instructions also covered alarm interfaces, grounding and readiness for review.
Where the panels disagree
Supply terminals, fuses and earth connections are drawn differently on pages of the same panel. Terminal and wire numbers repeat, sensor models do not match their wiring, and parts lists leave out licences, adapters and devices the drawings need.
What to verify next
The controls designer should settle each panel’s supply path and terminal numbering, then rebuild the parts lists from the wired points before panels are built. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designer and the panel builder.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Controller licences cover fewer points than wired
Parts lists license each controller for fewer input and output points than its panel wires.
Why it matters: Controllers ordered as listed lack channels.
What to check: List the extra point licence each panel needs.
ElectricalFan earth terminal has no conductor
The ventilation fan’s protective earth terminal is left unconnected in every panel package.
Why it matters: The panel builder has no earth connection to wire.
What to check: Draw the earth conductor to the panel earth.
ElectricalController supply line and neutral are swapped
The power and module pages land the controller’s 24 VAC line and neutral on opposite terminals.
Why it matters: Panels wired from one page reverse the supply.
What to check: Match both pages to the maker’s wiring.
ElectricalPassive sensors are wired to a supply
Water temperature sensors get a 24 VAC supply, but the model shown is passive.
Why it matters: Either the supply or the model is wrong.
What to check: Confirm the sensor type with the controls supplier.
ElectricalInput terminal numbers repeat
One panel’s input terminal strip uses the same numbers twice for valve and pump signals.
Why it matters: Cables cannot be landed or tested by number.
What to check: Renumber the terminals so each is used once.
ElectricalParts lists omit the bus adapters
Module drawings show input and output bus adapters that the parts lists do not order.
Why it matters: A takeoff from the lists misses them.
What to check: Add the adapters to each affected parts list.
ElectricalEnclosure door count conflicts
The parts list orders a double-door enclosure; the panel layout draws one full-width door.
Why it matters: The enclosure cannot be ordered with confidence.
What to check: Confirm the door arrangement and correct one document.
ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
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.