The lintel over the garage door is sized for a shorter span than the opening it carries.
The permit drawings for a two-storey house with a basement were read with the truss layouts supplied as references, and a lintel, the alarms, the radon rough-in and the energy summary are not yet ready for the plan examiner.
House permit set: lintels, radon, energy
Architectural permit drawings with floor plans, sections, elevations, assembly and lintel schedules and an energy design summary for a single-family house with a basement, read with the roof and floor truss layouts as supporting references and against the residential building code and energy compliance provisions the review cited.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural permit drawings for a two-storey single-family house with a basement and attached garage, with the roof and floor truss layouts supplied as supporting references. Its instructions asked for missing or inconsistent information, drawings checked against specifications, permit readiness and missing compliance, and a document health check for broken references and incomplete schedules. Code checking was enabled.
What would stop the plan examiner
One structural item leads: the garage door lintel, under the roof trusses that bear on that wall, is shorter in allowable span than the opening. The rest is permit paperwork that is easy to fix before submission and slow to fix after: smoke and CO alarms and exhaust fans defined in the legends but placed on no plan, a radon rough-in that covers one of the two slabs on ground, an energy summary that picks a prescriptive package without the glazing ratio that decides it, and drafting notes still asking to recheck the roof. The assembly and lintel schedules disagree with the plans, sections and notes on concrete strength, backfill, wall types, a patio floor and a roof covering.
What to verify next
The designer should have the garage lintel sized by the engineer, place the alarms and fans, extend the radon rough-in, complete the energy summary and clear the drafting notes before the set goes in. Examples that cite a requirement follow the residential building code and energy compliance provisions the review cited; every example is a question for the designer and the building department.
12 selected examples from the review
Twelve distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Garage lintel too short for its span
The lintel table for its roof load allows a shorter span than the garage opening.
Why it matters: The header would need replacing if framed as drawn.
What to check: Have the engineer size and schedule a beam.
Architectural · StructuralAlarms and fans on no plan
Legends define smoke alarm, CO alarm and exhaust fan symbols; no plan places them.
Why it matters: Locations and wiring cannot be checked or priced.
What to check: Place them on every floor plan, including each bedroom.
Architectural · Electrical · MechanicalRadon rough-in skips a slab
The rough-in covers the basement floor but not the separate slab-on-ground main floor.
Why it matters: That slab could be poured with no way to depressurize it.
What to check: Extend the note and detail to the second slab.
ArchitecturalSlab strength given two ways
Foundation notes and two floor assemblies give different concrete strengths.
Why it matters: The concrete cannot be ordered from the set.
What to check: Choose one strength and revise the other.
Architectural · StructuralBackfill granular or native
Notes require free-draining granular backfill; details reuse native soil.
Why it matters: Cost and wall drainage depend on which governs.
What to check: Decide the material and align notes and details.
ArchitecturalCovered patio tagged as heated floor
An exterior covered patio carries the interior heated floor assembly tag.
Why it matters: It could be priced and built as interior floor.
What to check: Retag it with the porch slab assembly.
ArchitecturalEnergy summary left blank
The prescriptive package is chosen, but wall and glazing areas and the ratio read “XX”.
Why it matters: The examiner cannot confirm the path or window values.
What to check: Calculate the ratio and complete the summary.
ArchitecturalMetal roof on one elevation only
One elevation labels a roof metal; every roof assembly specifies asphalt shingles.
Why it matters: That roof cannot be priced or ordered.
What to check: Remove the label or add a metal roof assembly.
ArchitecturalDrafting notes left on the permit set
Notes ask to recheck the roof changes and to confirm a bedroom’s floor heating.
Why it matters: Bidders cannot tell what is final.
What to check: Settle both questions and remove the notes.
Architectural · MechanicalSchedules point to missing details
Upper-floor schedules cite a detail not on the sheet and omit two marks the plan uses.
Why it matters: Framers cannot find the post detail or header size.
What to check: Correct the reference and add the missing marks.
Architectural · StructuralBasement wall type differs
A section and the foundation plan tag the same basement walls with different wall types.
Why it matters: Insulation and framing cannot be set.
What to check: Make the section and plan tags agree.
ArchitecturalPatio door height two ways
An elevation and the floor plan give different heights for the same patio door.
Why it matters: The door and transom cannot be ordered.
What to check: Correct one so both give one height.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, 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 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.