By the plan’s own conversion, two substations are smaller than the load they feed.
The load table, the narrative, the legend and the distribution map each size the development’s power supply, and they do not agree.
Site power and street lighting
A power distribution and street lighting plan for a residential development, with its load calculation, legend and summary narrative.
What the review compared
The review followed each cable on the distribution map from its substation to the lots it serves, then checked the substation ratings, the load table, the legend and the summary narrative against one another. Its instructions focused on unresolved design decisions and their effect on budget.
Where the plan disagrees with itself
The narrative and the map count different numbers of substations, and two substations carry more load than their rating by the plan’s own arithmetic. Street and park lighting are missing from the load table, the park has no internal lighting, and lamp wattages differ between the notes.
What to verify next
The electrical designer should allocate load to each substation, confirm the substation count and add the lighting loads before the budget is fixed. Code checking was enabled; the park lighting examples follow the planning regulation the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designer.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Two substations are smaller than their load
Using the plan’s own kW-to-kVA conversion, two substations feed more load than their rating.
Why it matters: Transformer count, space and cost would change.
What to check: Allocate load by substation and resize or add one.
ElectricalNarrative counts three substations; the map shows seven
The summary narrative builds three substations; the map, legend and load table show seven.
Why it matters: An estimate from the narrative misses four.
What to check: Correct the narrative, or the map if three is intended.
ElectricalPark has no internal lighting
Lights run only along the streets around a park that has internal paths.
Why it matters: Park lighting cost and supply are undefined.
What to check: Light the park’s gates, plazas and paths, and add the load.
ElectricalLoad table leaves out lighting
The load calculation totals housing and public buildings, with no street or park lighting.
Why it matters: Substation capacity is not confirmed.
What to check: Add the lighting loads and recheck capacity.
ElectricalLamp wattage differs
The narrative gives one lamp wattage; the legend gives two, assigned to no street.
Why it matters: Lamp quantities and load cannot be set.
What to check: Use one wattage or assign each type to streets.
ElectricalTwo loads share one name
Row-house loads in one district reuse an apartment block’s load name from another.
Why it matters: Loads can be matched to the wrong substation.
What to check: Name loads by district number.
ElectricalTwo load values are covered
A lot number and a dashed line print over two load labels on the map.
Why it matters: Those loads cannot be checked.
What to check: Move the graphics or restate the values.
ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, 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.