One footing. Conflicting sizes and reinforcement.
Foundation plans and schedules disagree on footing geometry, column reinforcement and tie spacing.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Reinforced-concrete foundations
Concrete foundation plans, column schedules and reinforcement details.
What the review covered
Concrete foundation plans, column schedules and reinforcement details.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Footing details conflict
The plan and schedule give different footing sizes and reinforcement.
Why it matters: Excavation and reinforcement requirements are unclear.
What to check: Issue one coordinated footing detail.
StructuralColumn corner bars are unspecified
The column schedule omits the corner-bar quantity and diameter.
Why it matters: The reinforcement cannot be fully detailed.
What to check: Specify the missing bars.
StructuralColumn-end ties exceed the cited limit
The scheduled tie spacing exceeds the limit calculated from the longitudinal bars.
Why it matters: The reinforcement needs verification against the cited requirement.
What to check: Check the spacing and revise the schedule.
StructuralMid-column ties exceed the cited limit
Mid-column tie spacing exceeds the cited limit for the scheduled column widths.
Why it matters: The spacing needs verification against the cited requirement.
What to check: Check the limit and revise the schedule.
StructuralFoundation bearing assumption is missing
The footing drawings omit the soil bearing capacity and supporting geotechnical report.
Why it matters: The basis for footing sizing is unclear.
What to check: State the bearing capacity and cite its supporting report.
StructuralMixed-bar lap rule is inconsistent
The lap note uses the smaller bar where the cited requirement uses the larger bar.
Why it matters: The specified lap may be insufficient.
What to check: Clarify the governing diameter and coordinate lap lengths.
StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, 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.