47 findings across five disciplines in a 64-page grocery renovation
Most of what this set got wrong sat between two documents. A review of a 64-page neighborhood grocery renovation returned 47 potential findings across architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical sheets, and several came from checking the drawings against the equipment data included in the set.
Counts describe this review only. They do not establish the source project's compliance, safety, or final issue disposition.
Neighborhood grocery
A 64-page renovation set for a neighborhood grocery with a recessed receiving dock, roll-up dock doors, and a prepared-foods counter, covering architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical drawings, reviewed with code checking enabled.
The drawings disagreed with the equipment data
The cooler condensate detail, the refrigerant notes, and a walk-in shelf clearance were each checked against the data included for the scheduled product. All three came out different.
Several findings crossed a discipline line
An exhaust-fan breaker, a dock door's scope, and the dock haunch each read one way on one discipline's sheets and another way on the next.
The code notes name more than one edition
The cover, the code-summary sheet, and the mechanical notes do not cite the same code cycle, and one structural sheet cites two editions of ACI 318.
6 selected findings from the review
6 of the 47 potential findings, ordered by severity. The wording is the review's own.
Cooler condensate slope is below the scheduled unit's data sheet
M-401 condensate detail note 4 calls for a fall of 3/8 inch in 10 feet. The product data included for AH-2, the walk-in cooler air handler, requires a minimum fall of 7/8 inch in 10 feet. The drawing provides less than half the fall that data sheet requires.
Why it matters: Following the detail could leave condensate moving too slowly to clear the trap.
What to check: Revise the slope and confirm the route has enough fall for the scheduled unit and the plumbing notes.
Mechanical · PlumbingThe sales-floor split system and the piping notes name different refrigerants
M-201 schedules CU-3, the 5-ton split serving the sales floor, with R-32, and the product data in the set lists R-32 for that unit. M-301 instead specifies R-410A and the line-test pressures that go with it. The piping notes do not match the scheduled equipment.
Why it matters: Charging and pressure-testing the same system would follow two different refrigerant requirements.
What to check: Align the piping notes with the scheduled unit and its product data.
MechanicalEF-4 breaker is above the mechanical schedule maximum
M-201 gives EF-4, the prep-area exhaust, a maximum overcurrent protection rating of 15 A. E-201 shows a 20 A breaker for that fan in panel H1. The panel selection is higher than the mechanical schedule allows.
Why it matters: The two schedules give different protection ratings for buying and connecting EF-4.
What to check: Confirm the fan's permitted breaker size, then match the panel and the mechanical schedule.
Mechanical · ElectricalThe receiving-dock haunch has no specified depth
S-2.1 dimensions the recessed dock in plan. S-4.2 and S-4.4 show a concrete haunch under the new dock walls and call out #5 bars at 12 inches, but neither section dimensions the haunch depth. A-5.1 and A-5.3 show the new 8" dock walls and also leave the haunch depth off.
Why it matters: The concrete crew cannot set the excavation, formwork, or bar elevation from a stated haunch depth.
What to check: Dimension the haunch depth on S-4.2 and S-4.4, or give a bottom-of-haunch elevation, and show the same depth on both architectural sections.
Structural · ArchitecturalBuilding, concrete, and plumbing code editions do not match
G-0.0 cites the 2021 IBC. A-0.2 uses the 2012 IBC for the renovated area, and M-0.1 cites the 2018 IMC. On S-0.1 the design criteria name ACI 318-19, while the development-length table is headed ACI 318-11. P-0.1 specifies the International Plumbing Code, and the mechanical notes call for the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Why it matters: The set does not settle which building, concrete, and plumbing requirements govern the renovation.
What to check: Confirm the code basis on the permit and make each discipline's notes use that basis. Pick one ACI 318 edition and check the development table against it.
Architectural · Mechanical · Plumbing · StructuralDock door OH-2 is marked both existing and new
A-2.1 tags overhead door OH-2 at the receiving dock as existing to remain. At the same opening, S-2.1 calls for a new door and frame, and S-3.2 labels the frame new. The replacement scope does not agree.
Why it matters: Pricing and installation could include different door and frame work at OH-2.
What to check: Decide whether OH-2 and its frame stay or are replaced, then match the architectural plan and the structural notes.
Architectural · StructuralHow the findings were distributed
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Structural, and Plumbing
The review returned 16 architectural, 12 mechanical, 9 electrical, 7 structural, and 3 plumbing potential findings.
4 higher-priority findings to investigate first
The review assigned 4 high, 16 medium, 27 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 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.
47 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 47 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?
Yes. These findings come from a Groundbook review completed in September 2026.
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 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.