The exit stair is enclosed with sprinkler-protected tempered glass instead of a rated assembly.
The architectural set was checked against the structural, mechanical, electrical and interior design drawings for exits, fire separations and accessibility.
Restaurant renovation life safety
Architectural progress drawings for a multi-floor restaurant renovation in an existing building, with the consultant and interior design sets as references.
What the review compared
The architectural progress set was the checked document. The review traced exits, fire separations and accessible routes from the code review sheet into the plans, sections, door schedule and hardware, and compared openings, grids and infills with the consultant and interior design drawings.
What the permit reviewer would question
The exit stair enclosure, its vestibule ceiling and a held-open stair door leave gaps in the required separations. The guards, the washroom stalls and a new ramp are not documented to the stair and accessibility requirements the review checked.
What to verify next
The architect should revise the stair enclosure, hardware and washrooms, and coordinate the grids and slab infills with the structural engineer before the permit set. Code checking was enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers and the building official.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Exit stair enclosure uses unrated glass
The exit stair is enclosed with sprinkler-protected tempered glass, not a rated assembly.
Why it matters: The permit reviewer can reject the enclosure.
What to check: Use a rated assembly or an alternative solution.
ArchitecturalExit vestibule ceiling is unrated
The stair discharge vestibule has an unrated ceiling under a dining room.
Why it matters: The exit enclosure is not continuous.
What to check: Use a rated ceiling assembly.
ArchitecturalStair door is held open without release
The basement exit stair door has a hold-open closer and no fire alarm release.
Why it matters: The stair could stay open in a fire.
What to check: Remove the hold-open or release it on alarm.
Architectural · ElectricalExit stair guards are too low
Guards at the exit stair landings are drawn below the code’s minimum height.
Why it matters: The guards would need rebuilding.
What to check: Raise the guards and update the section.
ArchitecturalAccessible stall door is too narrow
The only accessible stall in one washroom has a door below the required clear width.
Why it matters: The washroom layout would change at permit.
What to check: Widen the door and update the schedule.
ArchitecturalA grid line differs between disciplines
Structural plans place one grid line about half a meter from its architectural position.
Why it matters: Work set out from it lands in two places.
What to check: Agree the grid and revise one set.
Architectural · StructuralSlab infills are not on the structural plans
Architectural plans infill two demolished stair openings by reference to structural; structural shows neither.
Why it matters: The infills cannot be priced or built.
What to check: Have both infills designed and drawn.
Architectural · StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, and Interior Design
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.