Thirteen findings hiding in a nine-sheet multi-level set
A set can look finished and still carry the errors that cost the most on site. Thirteen potential findings came out of this nine-sheet multi-level mechanical review, and every one of them was a reference that did not resolve.
Project details have been anonymized. Findings are potential issues for professional verification, not final code or engineering conclusions.
Counts describe this anonymized review only. They do not establish the source project's compliance, safety, or final issue disposition.
Multi-level MEP coordination
A nine-sheet mechanical pipework and ductwork package across three levels of a multi-storey building, including smoke exhaust, fan coil units, condensers, and lift ventilation.
A tidy set can still be wrong
Nine sheets of well-drawn pipework and ductwork returned thirteen findings, every one of them a reference that did not resolve.
Tags are the coordination layer
A duplicated fan coil tag and a swapped condenser pair are invisible on the page and expensive on site.
Notes pointed at the wrong equipment
A smoke exhaust fan carried a spill-air installation note, and a lift vent pointed at a smoke-exhaust note.
6 selected findings from the review
6 of the 13 potential findings, ordered by severity. The wording is the review's own, with every project identifier removed.
Smoke exhaust fan SEF-R-04 points to the spill-air installation note
SEF-R-04 is part of the smoke-exhaust system. On the roof drawing, its note describes a normal spill-air fan with a backflow prevention damper. The connected duct on the Level 02 drawing requires fire-rated supports and ductwork, plus a smoke damper. The roof note gives conflicting installation instructions for this smoke-exhaust system.
Why it matters: A contractor could apply the normal spill-air installation requirements to a smoke-exhaust system. This conflict needs resolution before fan selection and installation so the smoke-control requirements are carried through.
What to check: The mechanical engineer should reconcile SEF-R-04 with the smoke-control design and equipment schedule, then correct the roof keynote. Confirm the fan, discharge and damper arrangement against the smoke-exhaust requirements.
MechanicalFCU-GF-A-03 is duplicated on the Level 00 pipework plan
The unit in AGPC Media Office 235 is labelled FCU-GF-A-02 on the ductwork drawing and FCU-GF-A-03 on the pipework drawing. The pipework drawing also uses FCU-GF-A-03 for the separate unit in National Press Officer 236. Two different units share one identifier, and the drawings disagree on the unit in room 235.
Why it matters: The duplicate tag can cause piping connections and controls to be assigned to the wrong unit.
What to check: The mechanical engineer should reconcile the unit tags with the equipment schedule and correct the pipework tag in AGPC Media Office 235. Keep the ductwork, pipework and controls documentation consistent.
MechanicalTwo condenser tag pairs are swapped between the Level 02 layouts
In Mechanical Plantroom 02, the labels CU-L2-A-01 and CU-L2-D-04 are swapped between the Level 02 ductwork and pipework drawings. A-01 points to the lower unit on ductwork and the upper unit on pipework; D-04 is reversed. The adjacent pair CU-L2-H-02 and CU-L2-BC-01 is also swapped. H-02 points below BC-01 on ductwork and above it on pipework.
Why it matters: Following the two layouts could assign refrigerant connections, controls and condenser exhaust to different systems, causing incorrect connections or rework.
What to check: The mechanical engineer should confirm the intended units for A-01, D-04, H-02 and BC-01 against the equipment schedule and system design, then align the tags and leaders on both layouts.
Mechanicalcontrol-room outside-air route conflicts with the heat-exchanger note
The note for the control room requires outside air from a heat exchanger. The drawn route instead brings outside air from the facade louvre through OAF-GF-06, which is specified as a fan and filter box. The drawing and note specify different equipment for the same outside-air supply.
Why it matters: The conflicting requirements leave heat recovery unresolved and could lead to the wrong outside-air equipment being priced or installed.
What to check: Confirm whether race-control outside air requires heat recovery. Coordinate the intake route, equipment selection and notes 12 and 17 so they specify one arrangement.
MechanicalPlaceholder references remain on the Level 00 pipework sheets
Section markers on the four Level 00 pipework sheets still point to placeholder drawing numbers, including AEC-ME-DWG-0-X500000 and AEC-XX-SK-X-XXXX4. These references do not identify the final section drawings to use.
Why it matters: Readers cannot reliably follow the template references and may need clarification to identify the intended sections.
What to check: Replace each template reference with the correct issued sheet and view number, or remove the callout if it is obsolete.
MechanicalFour outdoor-unit tags are missing from the Level 02 ductwork layouts
Four outdoor units are labelled on the Level 02 pipework drawings but not on the matching ductwork drawings. The missing identifiers are CU-L2-D-01 in Mechanical Plantroom 02, ACU-L2-GF.05 and ACU-L2-GF.06 near grid 16, and ACU-L2-GF.08 beside ACU-L2-GF.09.
Why it matters: The missing tags make it harder to match outdoor units to their pipework and equipment information during installation and commissioning.
What to check: Add the missing identifiers to the Level 02 ductwork layouts after reconciling them with the pipework and equipment schedule. Check each leader against its intended unit.
MechanicalHow the findings were distributed
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Mechanical
The review returned 13 mechanical potential findings.
1 higher-priority finding to investigate first
The review assigned 1 high, 5 medium, 7 low severity ratings. Severity indicates potential impact if a finding is confirmed.
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 anonymized 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.
13 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 13 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.
A real review with project identifiers removed
The customer gave permission to publish this review content. The case study retains the review findings and aggregate results while removing details that identify the project or its participants.
- No address or location
- No project name
- No client or firm names
- No personnel
- No jurisdiction
About this review
Is this a real review?
Yes. These findings come from a Groundbook review completed in September 2026. The customer gave permission to publish the review content. Every project identifier has been removed: no client, firm, address, jurisdiction, project name, or personnel.
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 and you can also upload your own codebooks as reference files.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report walks through selected findings with their sources and the questions to verify.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or read more reviews from completed projects.
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.