The parking count does not match the plan.
The review flags a parking-count mismatch, missing wall references and conflicting pool dimensions.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Parking and pool coordination
Site parking, architectural wall references and pool drawings.
What the review covered
Site parking, architectural wall references and pool drawings.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Parking count exceeds the layout
The parking table counts more spaces than the plan shows, including an access aisle.
Why it matters: The stated parking provision is unreliable.
What to check: Recount the drawn spaces and correct the table.
ArchitecturalWall references are missing
Wall tags lack a type schedule, and referenced sections are absent.
Why it matters: Wall assemblies cannot be confirmed.
What to check: Provide the schedule and referenced sections.
ArchitecturalPool lengths conflict
The pool table gives a shorter length than the plan and section.
Why it matters: The intended pool size is unclear.
What to check: Coordinate one pool length across the set.
ArchitecturalEnlarged room plans are missing
Room-detail callouts point to enlarged plans absent from the uploaded set.
Why it matters: Referenced room details cannot be checked.
What to check: Include the plans or identify the governing document.
ArchitecturalPool piping references are missing
Pool piping and fill-control references point to documents absent from the set.
Why it matters: Pipe routing and fill controls remain unresolved.
What to check: Provide the referenced piping plans, legends and fill controls.
ArchitecturalGrill-island assemblies conflict
The plan requires noncombustible construction; the section specifies timber framing and plywood.
Why it matters: The two views specify conflicting construction.
What to check: Coordinate the grill-island assembly.
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.