The electrical diagram is three-phase; the budget prices a single-phase supply.
The drawings, the project report, the written specification and the priced budget describe the same house, and they price different materials and quantities.
House drawings, budget and specification
A full project for a single-family house: architectural, structural and services drawings, with the project report, written specification and priced bill of quantities.
What the review compared
The review read the drawings with the project report, the written specification and the priced budget for a single-family house. Its instructions asked for consistency between drawings, specification and quantities, missing details, dimension conflicts and gaps between the plans and the priced items.
Where the documents disagree
A structural level and a structural opening do not fit the architecture. The budget prices a different electrical supply, different light fittings and fewer beams than are drawn, and the specification requires pipe materials that neither the drawings nor the budget use.
What to verify next
The architect should reconcile the drawings, specification and budget item by item before tender, and attach the soil study the report cites. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the responsible designer.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Slab level leaves no room for the floor
The structural slab level sits just below finished floor, leaving no depth for the specified layers.
Why it matters: Floor, stair and threshold levels would change.
What to check: Confirm the slab level and align sections.
Structural · ArchitecturalStair opening cuts into the plant room
The top floor’s structural stair opening extends past the stair into the plant room.
Why it matters: A wall would sit over the opening.
What to check: Match the opening to the attic plan.
Structural · ArchitecturalThree-phase on the drawings, single-phase in the budget
The diagram and calculation design three-phase; the budget prices a single-phase meter, feeder and board.
Why it matters: The supply cannot be priced or requested.
What to check: Decide the supply and align all three.
Electrical · SpecificationsSpecification requires pipes the drawings do not use
The written specification requires copper water pipe and cement drains; drawings and budget use plastic.
Why it matters: The specification governs, so unpriced materials could be required.
What to check: Correct the specification articles.
Specifications · PlumbingSoil report cited but not attached
The report says the soil study is attached; it is not, and deeper footings are unmeasured.
Why it matters: Bidders cannot check the ground assumptions.
What to check: Attach the study and price deeper digging.
Structural · SpecificationsBudget prices fluorescent fittings for LED downlights
The lighting plan draws recessed LED points; the budget prices surface fluorescent fittings instead.
Why it matters: Type, mounting and lamp all differ.
What to check: Define each fitting and adjust the budget.
Electrical · SpecificationsBudget measures one of two tie beam lines
The foundation plan draws two lines of tie beams; the budget measures only one.
Why it matters: Excavation and concrete for one line are unpriced.
What to check: Add the second line to the budget items.
Specifications · StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Specifications
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
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 coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 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 and completeness 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.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.