Eight findings in a seven-sheet residential set
This was the smallest set we have published a review of, and it still returned eight potential findings. Small sets carry the same reference errors as large ones, with fewer sheets to catch them.
Project details have been anonymized. Findings are potential issues for professional verification, not final code or engineering conclusions.
Counts describe this anonymized review only. They do not establish the source project's compliance, safety, or final issue disposition.
Residential coordination
A seven-sheet residential floor plan set reviewed for general coordination, with no code check enabled.
Seven sheets, eight questions
This is the smallest set we have published a review of. Small sets carry the same reference errors as large ones, with fewer sheets to catch them.
References have to resolve
A window size reference that lands nowhere is the same defect on seven sheets as it is on two hundred.
Print orientation matters
An attic-access note printed as a mirror image, which is the kind of thing a reader skims past and a reviewer should not.
6 selected findings from the review
6 of the 8 potential findings, ordered by severity. The wording is the review's own, with every project identifier removed.
Stair-window size reference does not resolve on A1-2a
On A1-1a, First Floor Plan "A", the stair-window note directs the reader to the second floor for its size. At the corresponding window on A1-2a, Second Floor Plan "A", the note repeats the same instruction. Neither of these two callouts gives the size, so the reference does not resolve.
Why it matters: The window size needs clarification before ordering or setting the opening.
What to check: Replace the note on A1-2a with the window size and head height, or a reference to the detail or schedule that specifies them. Update A1-1a to point to that information.
ArchitecturalKitchen identification and appliance labels are incomplete on A1-1a
On A1-1a, First Floor Plan "A", the kitchen area shows a range, sink and cabinets, but no KITCHEN title or SINK, DW or REF labels. The adjacent breakfast area has a floor-finish and ceiling-height note; the kitchen has no separate note confirming whether those values continue. The project checklist asks for room titles, finishes, ceiling heights and plumbing/appliance labels.
Why it matters: Appliance rough-in locations and the extent of the finish and ceiling notes need clarification.
What to check: Add the kitchen title and identify the intended sink, dishwasher and refrigerator locations. Confirm the kitchen floor finish and ceiling height, or show that the adjacent note applies.
ArchitecturalConfirm laundry provision on A1-1a and A1-2a
Neither A1-1a, First Floor Plan "A", nor A1-2a, Second Floor Plan "A", identifies a washer, dryer or laundry space. The project checklist mentions washer-box dimensions and utility-area tags, but does not state whether laundry equipment is included in this design. Confirm the intended laundry provision.
Why it matters: If laundry is intended, its location must be established before the service connections are coordinated.
What to check: Confirm whether laundry is included. If it is, show the equipment locations, washer box and room label on the appropriate plan.
ArchitecturalHose bibb layout needs coordination on A1-1a and A1-2a
On A1-1a, First Floor Plan "A", HB (hose bibb) symbols appear by the garage door and front entry, but none is shown beside the covered patio. The project checklist calls for a hose bibb at the back of the house next to the patio. A1-2a repeats an HB symbol at the front return; the plans do not explain whether separate fittings are intended at both levels.
Why it matters: The patio connection and the meaning of the repeated front-return symbol need clarification before plumbing rough-in.
What to check: Show a hose bibb beside the rear patio. Clarify whether the HB on A1-2a is a separate fitting or a reference to the first-floor fitting.
ArchitecturalAttic access note prints as a mirror image on A1-1a
On A1-1a, First Floor Plan "A", the attic access in the garage ceiling is marked with a crossed rectangle whose label, 22"x30" ATTIC ACCESS, is printed backwards as a mirror image. The size and purpose of the symbol cannot be read normally on the print.
Why it matters: The mirrored label makes the opening size and purpose harder to read.
What to check: Un-mirror the block or retype the note so it reads 22"x30" ATTIC ACCESS.
ArchitecturalSection and interior-elevation references are missing from A1-1a and A1-2a
Neither A1-1a, First Floor Plan "A", nor A1-2a, Second Floor Plan "A", shows section-cut markers or interior-elevation tags at the kitchen and bathrooms. The project checklist requires section markers and interior-elevation tags starting with the kitchen, then bathrooms and utility areas.
Why it matters: The plans do not direct the reader to the section and interior-elevation views for these areas.
What to check: Add section markers and interior-elevation tags for the intended views. Reference the sheets and view numbers that actually contain those views.
ArchitecturalHow the findings were distributed
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural
The review returned 8 architectural potential findings.
Coordination and documentation questions
The review assigned 0 high, 2 medium, 6 low severity ratings. Severity indicates potential impact if a finding is confirmed.
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 anonymized 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.
8 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 8 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.
A real review with project identifiers removed
The customer gave permission to publish this review content. The case study retains the review findings and aggregate results while removing details that identify the project or its participants.
- No address or location
- No project name
- No client or firm names
- No personnel
- No jurisdiction
About this review
Is this a real review?
Yes. These findings come from a Groundbook review completed in September 2026. The customer gave permission to publish the review content. Every project identifier has been removed: no client, firm, address, jurisdiction, project name, or personnel.
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, and you can upload your own codebooks as reference files.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report walks through selected findings with their sources and the questions to verify.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or read more reviews from completed projects.
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.