An outlet in the diagram. None on the plan.
Drainage drawings disagree on tank outlets, discharge destinations and pipe continuity between floors.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Residential plumbing and electrical coordination
Residential plumbing diagrams, floor plans and service coordination.
What the review covered
Residential plumbing diagrams, floor plans and service coordination.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Tank outlet is missing from the plan
The drainage diagram shows a tank outlet absent from the basement plan.
Why it matters: The discharge route is incomplete.
What to check: Show the outlet and its continuation.
PlumbingDrainage destinations conflict
The diagram sends upper-floor stacks to the sewer; the plan routes them to a septic tank.
Why it matters: The intended drainage system is unclear.
What to check: Coordinate one discharge destination.
PlumbingSoil pipe stops between floors
Separate soil and waste pipes descend, but the receiving plan continues only the waste pipe.
Why it matters: The soil drainage route is incomplete.
What to check: Continue and label both pipes.
PlumbingAssigned equipment circuits are marked spare
Plans assign heater and air-conditioning loads to circuits marked spare in panel schedules.
Why it matters: Circuit capacity and protection are unresolved.
What to check: Coordinate loads, breakers and cables across plans and schedules.
ElectricalPump power circuits are missing
Pump power points have no circuit tags or matching panel entries.
Why it matters: The pump power connections are undefined.
What to check: Assign circuits and show their routes.
ElectricalBackup-power connections are missing
The UPS and inverter have no shown feeder connections to the panels they supply.
Why it matters: The backup-power distribution is unresolved.
What to check: Show the feeders, routes and protection.
ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Electrical and Plumbing
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
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.