The stair does not fit the client’s brief.
The review flags a blocked stair arrival and dimensions that fall outside the client’s requested limits.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Multistory stair and room layout
Multistory stair and room layouts checked against the client’s brief.
What the review covered
Multistory stair and room layouts checked against the client’s brief.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Window blocks the stair arrival
A window crosses the stair’s arrival path at the landing.
Why it matters: The route into the landing is unclear.
What to check: Resolve the window position and clear passage.
ArchitecturalStair rise exceeds the client’s limit
The drawn riser count cannot span the floor height within the client’s maximum riser height.
Why it matters: The stair does not fit the requested dimensions.
What to check: Recalculate the risers against the client’s brief.
ArchitecturalBedroom depth falls below the brief
Bedroom depths are below the client’s requested minimum.
Why it matters: The room layouts do not meet the brief.
What to check: Revise the layouts or confirm a revised brief.
ArchitecturalBedroom width falls below the brief
Another bedroom is narrower than the client’s requested minimum on multiple floors.
Why it matters: The layout does not match the brief.
What to check: Revise the width or confirm the client’s requirement.
ArchitecturalRoof level repeats the floor below
The roof plan repeats the lower floor’s level despite a connecting stair.
Why it matters: The roof level and stair rise disagree.
What to check: Coordinate the roof level with the stair.
ArchitecturalStair opening dimensions conflict
Opposite dimension strings give different lengths for the same stair opening.
Why it matters: The opening cannot be set out consistently.
What to check: Coordinate its dimensions with the drawn geometry.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority; count breakdowns are omitted for anonymity.
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 September 2026. Findings are summarized and identifying details omitted. Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
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.