The new header is designed to sag far more than the sliding door it carries can tolerate.
The permit set for a one-storey house alteration that removes a rear bearing wall for a wide multi-panel sliding door was read with its structural calculations and the door maker’s drawing, and the header, the opening height and the permit paperwork do not yet agree.
House wall removal for a sliding door
Architectural permit drawings, structural foundation and roof framing drawings, structural calculations and the door manufacturer’s shop drawing for a single-family house alteration, read against one another and the city plan-check checklists, bulletins and energy code the review cited.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural permit drawings, the structural foundation and roof framing drawings, the structural calculations and the door manufacturer’s drawing for an alteration to a one-storey single-family house: removing a rear bearing wall and installing a wide multi-panel sliding door under a new header beam. Its instructions asked for missing compliance information, conflicting code references, incomplete safety documentation and anything likely to draw plan-check comments, citing the source sheet for each. Code checking was enabled.
Where the header and the door disagree
Most findings sit at one opening. The calculations accept far more header deflection than the door drawing leaves at its head, the header is called flush in the notes but drawn dropped in its detail, and the section leaves no height for an opening of the size the door needs under a beam of the stated depth. Around it, the uplift anchorage, the new footings and hold-downs, the shear walls the demolition plan keeps, the sill and the flashing are undesigned or drawn two ways. The permit paperwork lacks the energy forms, the pool barrier, code references in the current numbering and the wind data the city checklist asks for.
What to verify next
The designer and the engineer of record should measure the existing plate and roof heights, get the door maker’s deflection and head-gap limits in writing, and then settle the header position, size and support in one revision with the energy forms added. Examples that cite a requirement follow the city plan-check checklists, bulletins and energy code the review cited; every example is a question for the responsible designers and the building department.
12 selected examples from the review
Twelve distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Header sags more than the door allows
The calculations accept a beam deflection many times the gap the door drawing leaves.
Why it matters: The slider could bind under roof load.
What to check: Get the door maker’s limit, then resize or support the beam.
StructuralFlush beam drawn as a dropped beam
Notes and calculations make the header flush; its roof detail seats rafters on top.
Why it matters: The rafter connection and door head height change.
What to check: Decide flush or dropped and make every sheet agree.
StructuralNo height left for the opening
The section draws the roof where the beam top would sit over the door opening.
Why it matters: The opening, beam and roof cannot all fit as drawn.
What to check: Measure the existing heights and dimension the rough opening.
Architectural · StructuralEnergy forms and door ratings missing
Notes defer the door’s thermal values to energy forms that neither set contains.
Why it matters: The application can be refused at intake.
What to check: Add the compliance certificate and print the door values.
ArchitecturalNo uplift anchorage in a high-wind area
The lot is in a high-wind area; beam and post connections show no uplift design.
Why it matters: Plan check is likely to return it.
What to check: Design or detail the anchorage the cited bulletin requires.
StructuralFootings and hold-downs not calculated
New jamb footings and hold-downs into the old footing have no calculation.
Why it matters: Their sizes are unsupported for plan check.
What to check: Add bearing and uplift checks, then revise if needed.
StructuralDemolition keeps walls that become shear walls
The demolition note keeps wall pieces the structural plan sheathes as shear walls.
Why it matters: That work is likely missed in the bid.
What to check: Show the full shear walls and revise the demolition note.
ArchitecturalPost cap named two ways
A plan note and the typical details name different connectors at the header posts.
Why it matters: The connector cannot be bought or inspected with certainty.
What to check: Name one connector and align note and detail.
StructuralPool barrier and door alarm not shown
The new door opens onto a pool deck; no barrier or door alarm appears.
Why it matters: Plan check cannot tell whether an alarm is required.
What to check: Show the barrier, or add the alarm note.
ArchitecturalLong door sill not detailed
No sheet shows what supports the door sill or its threshold height.
Why it matters: Level support and drainage are left to the field.
What to check: Add a sill, threshold and sill pan detail.
Architectural · StructuralShear wall plywood graded three ways
The schedule, two note sets and a plan note give different panel grades.
Why it matters: A lower grade than rated could be accepted.
What to check: State the scheduled grade in every note.
StructuralCode sections cited by old numbers
General notes cite residential code sections the current edition assigns to other topics.
Why it matters: A plan checker finds unrelated sections.
What to check: Update every reference to the current numbering.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural and Architectural
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.