The runtime schedule never starts two whole series of courtyard valves, though the watering schedule gives them weekly run times.
The irrigation plans carry their own equipment, valve and runtime schedules and installation details, and those sources describe the water supply, controls and run times differently.
Mixed-use irrigation plans
Irrigation plans for a mixed-use development with building courtyards and roadway medians, supplied by a lake pump station and building potable water: plans, equipment and valve schedules, runtime schedules and details.
What the review compared
The review read the irrigation plans for a mixed-use development against their own equipment, valve, watering and runtime schedules and installation details. Code checking was enabled, so the controllers, run times and shut-off devices were also read against the local ordinance and the statute the review cited.
Where the schedules and plans disagree
A courtyard on lake water is scheduled with the valves and heads used on potable water, and the purple-ID bubblers are undercounted. The only master valve and flow sensor miss the main from the pump, one controller cannot run its decoder valves, and one rain sensor serves two controllers. The runtime schedule leaves zones out and runs spray zones in prohibited hours, and the backflow detail shows a different device from the schedule.
What to verify next
The irrigation designer should settle each zone’s water source and the controller, sensor and backflow equipment, then rebuild the runtime schedule from the valve schedule before the permit submittal. Examples that cite a requirement follow the codes the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designers.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Lake-fed courtyard has potable-type equipment
A courtyard on the lake pump is scheduled with valves and heads lacking purple identification.
Why it matters: Lake water reaches unmarked heads, or a potable connection is missing.
What to check: Decide the water source, then match equipment or piping.
IrrigationMaster valve misses the pump main
The master valve and flow sensor sit on a median branch, not the main.
Why it matters: A main break could be neither stopped nor recorded.
What to check: Move both to the pump discharge, or add a second pair.
IrrigationConventional controller runs decoder valves
One controller is specified as conventional, yet every valve it serves carries a two-wire decoder.
Why it matters: As specified, it cannot run those decoder valves.
What to check: Specify a decoder controller, or show conventional wiring.
IrrigationRuntime schedule leaves zones out
The watering schedule gives run times to courtyard and median valves the runtime schedule never starts.
Why it matters: Controllers programmed from it would never water these zones.
What to check: Add the valves, then recheck the watering day length.
IrrigationSpray zones run in restricted hours
Spray and rotor zones are scheduled in midday hours the local ordinance prohibits.
Why it matters: Turf would be watered in prohibited hours each watering day.
What to check: Re-sequence spray and rotor zones out of those hours.
IrrigationBackflow detail shows another device
The detail shows a pressure vacuum breaker; the schedule specifies reduced pressure assemblies at potable connections.
Why it matters: The contractor cannot tell which device to install.
What to check: Detail the scheduled assembly, or change the schedule.
IrrigationOne rain sensor for two controllers
The plans and schedule show one rain sensor; the controller data sheet lists one per controller.
Why it matters: One controller lacks the rain shut-off the cited statute requires.
What to check: Schedule a sensor for each controller.
IrrigationPurple-ID bubblers are undercounted
The equipment schedule counts far fewer purple-ID bubblers than the valve schedule puts on lake-water zones.
Why it matters: Plain bubblers would be installed on lake-water zones.
What to check: Correct both bubbler quantities and the plan symbols.
IrrigationReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Irrigation
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium 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.