The link to the existing building changes floor level with no stair or ramp drawn.
The plans and the technical report count parking, bike spaces and areas differently, and several plans cannot be set out.
Medical center and apartment scope
Architectural and structural drawings for a medical center and a multi-apartment building, reviewed with the project’s technical report.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural plans, sections and area tables for both buildings beside the project’s technical report. It looked for scope that one document carries and another omits, and for counts and areas that a cost estimate could take from either source.
Where the documents diverge
The plans and the report disagree on bike and car parking and on the roof slope. Identical terraces carry different areas, two rooms have no assigned use, and the medical center plans give no dimensions to set out walls or openings.
What to verify next
The architect should resolve the floor step at the building link, dimension the plans and reconcile the parking and area figures with the report before pricing. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Building link has an unresolved floor step
The link to the existing building changes level; no stair or ramp is drawn.
Why it matters: The passage cannot be set out.
What to check: Show the stair or ramp with levels in plan and section.
ArchitecturalStacked terraces have different areas
Identical terraces stacked on three floors carry different areas in the area tables.
Why it matters: Apartment and floor area totals are unreliable.
What to check: Measure the terraces to one boundary and update the totals.
ArchitecturalTwo basement rooms have no use
Two basement rooms still carry a placeholder label instead of a room use.
Why it matters: Their finishes and services cannot be coordinated.
What to check: Assign each room its intended use.
ArchitecturalMedical center plans have no setting-out dimensions
Six medical center plans give no overall, grid, wall or opening dimensions.
Why it matters: The contractor cannot set out walls and openings.
What to check: Add dimension strings and check them against the report.
ArchitecturalBasement bike store is missing
The technical report places bike parking in the basement; the basement plans show none.
Why it matters: Bike parking location and access are unpriced.
What to check: Draw the bike store or correct the report’s count.
ArchitecturalPlans draw more car spaces than the report
The basement plans draw two more parking spaces than the technical report counts.
Why it matters: The documents give two parking totals.
What to check: Confirm the number and align plans and report.
ArchitecturalRoof slope differs between report and plan
The report sets the flat roof slope at 2 degrees; the roof plan shows 2 percent.
Why it matters: The two values give different falls.
What to check: State one design slope and unit in both.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural and Structural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
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.