Emergency lighting exceeds the specified inverter capacity.
Lighting plans and fixture schedules assign more load than the specified emergency inverters can supply.
Recreation facility electrical
Electrical, mechanical, architectural and aquatics drawings, plus project specifications, reviewed for electrical coordination.
What the review compared
The lighting plan assigns fixtures to emergency inverters. The fixture schedule gives their wattage. The project specification sets the inverter capacity and requires full brightness on emergency power. Comparing all three exposed a load above the specified capacity.
Why the other documents matter
The review also compared distribution diagrams, panel schedules, equipment schedules and contract specifications. The selected findings leave equipment ratings, power supplies and purchasing responsibilities unresolved.
What to verify next
The electrical engineer and other responsible designers should reconcile each conflict against the source documents. This review checked coordination and completeness; code checking was not enabled.
6 selected examples from the review
Six distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Emergency inverters have insufficient capacity
The lighting plan’s connected load exceeds the inverter capacity specified in the project manual.
Why it matters: Full-brightness operation on emergency power is unresolved.
What to check: Confirm fixture loads, then resize inverters or regroup the lighting.
ElectricalInverter voltage conflicts with its circuits
Specified inverter voltages differ from both their supply circuits and the connected light fixtures.
Why it matters: Equipment selection remains unresolved.
What to check: Coordinate inverter input and output voltages with the drawings.
ElectricalPanel voltage and supply ratings conflict
The distribution diagram and schedule disagree on panel ratings; the supply is below scheduled demand.
Why it matters: Panel and feeder selection needs confirmation.
What to check: Confirm voltage and demand; coordinate the panel, breaker and feeder.
ElectricalPump motor and power supply disagree
The pump schedule specifies a different motor voltage from the electrical equipment and panel schedules.
Why it matters: Motor and circuit selection is unresolved.
What to check: Agree one voltage across both disciplines.
Electrical · AquaticsHeater power requirements conflict
Drawn heater circuits and scheduled loads disagree with the circuit requirements in the specification.
Why it matters: The required power supply is unclear.
What to check: Confirm manufacturer requirements before rough-in and reconcile the drawings.
Electrical · ArchitecturalAccess-control supply responsibility conflicts
Electrical notes and specifications assign the same access-control equipment and wiring to different suppliers.
Why it matters: The contractor’s pricing scope is unclear.
What to check: Align supply responsibilities across the notes and specification.
ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical, Mechanical, Architectural, Aquatics, Fire Alarm, Security, Communications, and Conveying
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
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 coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 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 and completeness 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.
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.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.