Anonymized AI plan review
Catch coordination risks before they become RFIs, rework, or delays.
Across approximately 60 pages for a six-story mixed-use residential building, Groundbook connected structural and mechanical/plumbing information—and surfaced issues that could otherwise lead to RFIs, redesign, procurement mistakes, field rework, or commissioning delays.
Project details have been anonymized. Findings are potential issues for professional verification, not final engineering conclusions.
The accuracy figure is a Groundbook product benchmark, not a project-specific measurement from this anonymized review.
The project context
A compact set with dense coordination.
A six-story mixed-use building concentrates residential systems, commercial services, structure, parking ventilation, drainage, controls, and life-safety interfaces in one coordinated package.
Information repeated across many views
Equipment tags, floor elevations, pump duties, control sequences, water loads, and structural requirements appeared in plans, schedules, diagrams, details, and specifications. Repetition creates useful cross-checks—and opportunities for drift.
Two disciplines, many interfaces
The review connected structural information with mechanical and plumbing requirements, including openings, floor elevations, sumps, equipment, services, and the references that guide construction.
Multiple issuance stages in one set
Some information had moved through permit and tender revisions. Groundbook looked for cases where a newer requirement existed but the governing source or downstream references remained unclear.
What the review surfaced
Six patterns behind the 42 potential findings.
Each example connects a document issue to the downstream risk it could create if the project team did not resolve it.
Unclear governing revision
Two structural schedules carried different requirements, while the set did not clearly state which version governed or update every downstream reference.
If unresolved: Teams could price, detail, or install against different requirements, forcing a late clarification or redesign.
Revision coordinationFloor elevations did not agree
Structural and mechanical plans showed the same floor area at elevations that differed by nearly two feet—a cross-discipline question requiring early verification.
If unresolved: Openings, drainage, clearances, and tie-ins could be coordinated to incompatible datums, creating field rework.
Structure ↔ mechanicalA required opening appeared in only one discipline
A sump shown in the mechanical design was not represented in the corresponding structural slab and footing area.
If unresolved: The omission could require late structural review, rerouting, coring, or other corrective field work.
Penetration coordinationNotes pointed to missing or incorrect sheets
Several plan notes sent readers to sheets or details that did not exist in the uploaded set or contained different information.
If unresolved: Reviewers and trades could lose time locating intent, submit RFIs, or proceed from the wrong detail.
Reference integrityPlans, schedules, and controls used different data
Equipment tags, quantities, duties, materials, and operating sequences did not always reconcile across plans, diagrams, schedules, and specifications.
If unresolved: Submittals, purchasing, controls programming, and commissioning could proceed from conflicting requirements.
MEP document consistencyCalculations and unit conversions drifted
Arithmetic totals and metric-imperial conversions included values that did not reconcile with the surrounding design information.
If unresolved: Sizing, pressure, clearance, or quantity decisions could rely on values the coordinated set does not support.
Calculation checksPotential downstream impact
Document conflicts become project problems when they stay unresolved.
The review did not establish that these outcomes occurred. It gave qualified teams an earlier opportunity to investigate the conditions that can produce them.
More RFIs and redesign cycles
Unclear revisions, incompatible elevations, and missing coordination can send questions back through the design team after pricing or construction planning has started.
Wrong information reaches submittals and purchasing
Conflicting tags, quantities, duties, and material requirements can carry into equipment selection, fabrication, procurement, and controls programming.
Late rerouting, openings, and rework
Missing penetrations or cross-discipline mismatches can require new reviews, changed routes, corrective openings, or installation rework in the field.
Commissioning and operational uncertainty
Inconsistent sequences, setpoints, tags, and scheduled values can slow functional testing or leave the intended operation unclear at turnover.
Potential impacts are based on the type of coordination issue, not on verified outcomes from this anonymized project.
The review method
Read each page. Connect the repeated facts. Return the evidence.
The value of a coordinated first pass comes from following information wherever it reappears—not treating every drawing as an isolated page.
- 1Classify the set
Organize disciplines, sheets, details, schedules, specifications, and repeated project entities.
- 2Cross-check relationships
Compare requirements within a discipline and across structural and MEP sources.
- 3Structure potential findings
Group possible conflicts, omissions, reference errors, and calculation discrepancies.
- 4Send evidence to the reviewer
Return source-linked context so a qualified professional can verify and resolve each item.
Reading the result responsibly
A review queue—not an automatic verdict.
The output expands review coverage while preserving professional judgment and accountability.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced 42 potential issues worth professional investigation.
- Higher-priority findings can be reviewed before lower-impact document cleanup.
- Examples crossed revisions, disciplines, schedules, references, and calculations.
- Each result can be checked against its supporting project context.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed design error.
- The project was noncompliant, unsafe, or unbuildable.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible architect, engineer, contractor, or authority.
- Unverified savings, prevented RFIs, or project outcomes can be attributed to the review.
Privacy by design
The lesson is public. The project is not.
This case study uses only a generalized building description and aggregate review results. It intentionally excludes source-document screenshots and information that could identify the project, its location, or its participants.
- No address or location
- No people or firm names
- No project or permit IDs
- No filenames
- No drawing numbers
- No revision dates
- No exact design values
- No unredacted screenshots
Questions, answered
About this AI plan review.
What did Groundbook AI review in this case study?
Two structural and mechanical/plumbing drawing files totaling approximately 60 pages for a six-story mixed-use residential building with ground-floor commercial space and a two-level underground parking garage.
What kinds of potential issues did the review surface?
Possible revision conflicts, cross-discipline elevation mismatches, missing coordination elements, broken drawing references, schedule inconsistencies, and calculation or unit-conversion discrepancies.
What could happen if these drawing issues were not addressed?
Depending on professional review and resolution, unresolved drawing conflicts could contribute to RFIs, redesign, incorrect procurement or fabrication, field rework, schedule pressure, and commissioning or operational uncertainty. This case study does not claim that those outcomes occurred on the source project.
Does Groundbook AI replace professional plan review?
No. Groundbook supports qualified professionals with a systematic first pass and traceable evidence. Responsible architects, engineers, contractors, and reviewers verify every finding and retain responsibility for decisions.
How was project privacy protected?
The case study omits the project address, names, firms, identifiers, filenames, drawing numbers, dates, screenshots, and exact design values. Only generalized building information and aggregate results are included.
Explore the workflow
Continue from the case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass.
Upload the project, review the price before payment, and receive structured potential findings with source context.