A fire door’s rating doubles between the first and later prints.
Door schedules, wall types and opening details changed between three prints, and some sheets disagree with their own general notes.
Public safety building revisions
Architectural floor plans, door and window schedules, wall types and opening details from three issues of the same building set.
What the review compared
The review compared selected architectural sheets across three issues of the same set, including two prints that share one date. It followed each door, window and wall type from the plans into the schedules and opening details.
What changed between prints
Door sizes, materials, fire ratings, access control and panic hardware changed between the first and later prints. Wall types gained ratings, heavier studs and different insulation, and several opening details drew different construction under unchanged titles.
What to verify next
The architect should confirm which print governs and withdraw superseded sheets from pricing and procurement. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Fire door rating changes between prints
One door is rated 45 minutes on the first print and 90 minutes on later prints.
Why it matters: A door ordered from the first print would be under-rated.
What to check: Order doors only from the current schedule.
ArchitecturalExterior door materials change between prints
Four exterior doors change from aluminum in aluminum frames to hollow metal in welded frames.
Why it matters: Orders from the first print would buy the wrong doors and frames.
What to check: Withdraw superseded schedules from pricing.
ArchitecturalGeneral notes contradict the door schedules
General notes make every exterior door hollow metal; schedules list wood, aluminum and FRP ones.
Why it matters: Suppliers cannot tell which material to price.
What to check: Add exceptions to the notes or correct the schedules.
ArchitecturalA wall type gains a one-hour rating
One wall type changes from a single unrated stud row to a rated double-stud assembly.
Why it matters: Walls framed from the first print would lack the rating.
What to check: Confirm which walls need the rating.
ArchitecturalStud gauges change across six wall types
Main stud notes on six wall types move to a heavier gauge between prints.
Why it matters: Framing priced from the first print may be too light.
What to check: Confirm the required gauge for each wall type.
ArchitecturalA plan opening is narrower than its frame
A floor plan dimensions a rough opening narrower than the scheduled frame it holds.
Why it matters: An opening framed to the plan would not fit.
What to check: Coordinate the opening with the scheduled frame.
ArchitecturalSame-date prints carry different notes
Two prints of one plan share a date; only one carries a clouded monitoring requirement.
Why it matters: Readers of the other print may omit that scope.
What to check: Identify the governing print and reissue the plan.
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.
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 October 2026. Findings are summarized.
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.