Three sheets name three different buyers for the kitchen hoods, fans and make-up air units.
The issued-for-construction set for a restaurant and retail store fit-out in a shopping center was read as one coordinated set during early construction, and the furnishing matrix, the kitchen package and the MEP sheets name different suppliers, sizes and ratings for the same items.
Restaurant and retail fit-out scope
Architectural, foodservice, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing drawings for a restaurant and retail store fit-out, with the specification sheets, responsibility matrices and landlord comments bound into the set, read against one another during early construction.
What the review compared
The review read the complete issued-for-construction set for a restaurant and retail store fit-out in a shopping center, the architectural sheets in one file and the foodservice, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing sheets in another, as one coordinated set. The project was in early construction. Its instructions asked for coordination errors, missing information, constructability and scope gaps likely to cause contractor RFIs, change orders, field rework, inspection problems or a later opening. Code checking was not enabled.
Who buys what
The clearest pattern is scope. The responsibility matrices, the kitchen package and the MEP sheets each say who furnishes and installs the hoods, fans, make-up air units, grease duct, transformer, light fixtures, partitions and beam cladding, and they rarely agree. Between the disciplines, a suspended transformer exceeds what the landlord allows, the hood support is sized two ways, the make-up air design misses the hood vendor’s conditions, panel loads leave out motors, and several kitchen items get a different plug, circuit or drain on each sheet.
What to verify next
The owner and architect should settle one furnishing and installing party for every matrix row before more long-lead items are ordered, and the MEP engineer should then align the mechanical, electrical and plumbing schedules with the kitchen package and the hood vendor’s conditions. Every example is a question for the responsible designers, the owner and the landlord.
12 selected examples from the review
Twelve distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Hood support angle sized two ways
The roof framing plan and the hood support detail give different angle sizes.
Why it matters: The smaller angle could carry the heaviest hood.
What to check: Structural engineer to state one size on both sheets.
StructuralTransformer hung beyond the landlord limit
A new transformer hangs from the roof; landlord comments allow only much smaller units.
Why it matters: The landlord can reject the support as designed.
What to check: Move it to the floor or obtain written acceptance.
Electrical · Structural · ArchitecturalThree buyers for the hood package
Matrix, mechanical and foodservice sheets each assign hoods, fans and make-up air differently.
Why it matters: Long-lead equipment may be bought twice or not at all.
What to check: Name one furnisher and installer, then align every sheet.
Architectural · Mechanical · FoodserviceMatrix contradicts the electrical sheets
The responsibility matrix gives the transformer to the landlord; electrical shows a new tenant unit.
Why it matters: Bidders may price it twice or leave it out.
What to check: Give each matrix row one buyer matching the drawings.
Architectural · ElectricalGrease duct specified two ways
The matrix asks for welded field duct; mechanical sheets call for factory-built double-wall duct.
Why it matters: The concealed duct and its enclosure cannot be priced reliably.
What to check: Choose one system and supplier, then correct the notes.
Mechanical · Architectural · FoodserviceMake-up air misses the hood conditions
Supply air, diffuser type and diffuser distance fall short of the hood vendor’s stated conditions.
Why it matters: The vendor’s capture guarantee would not apply.
What to check: Revise the air balance and diffusers with the vendor.
Mechanical · FoodserviceLighting bought by two parties
Architectural sheets give fixtures to the owner’s vendor; the electrical schedule gives them to the contractor.
Why it matters: Fixtures may be bought twice or by nobody.
What to check: Decide the buyer and revise both sheet families.
Architectural · ElectricalOven plug does not fit its circuit
The kitchen schedule gives a single-phase plug; the panel schedule feeds a three-phase locking receptacle.
Why it matters: Breaker, wire and receptacle would be redone on delivery.
What to check: Confirm the ordered oven, then revise the circuit.
Foodservice · ElectricalPanel demand leaves out motors
One panel’s demand omits its motor load; with it, the panel exceeds its transformer.
Why it matters: The transformer was checked against an understated load.
What to check: Correct the demand and recheck the transformer before ordering.
ElectricalRoof curb heights stated three ways
Schedule, roof plan and vendor package give different curb heights for four rooftop units.
Why it matters: Factory curbs could arrive at the wrong height.
What to check: Set one height per unit and hold curb orders.
MechanicalPatio sheathing below the structural minimum
An architectural detail calls for thinner sheathing than the structural notes require.
Why it matters: Replacing it would change deck and fascia heights.
What to check: Revise the detail or obtain the engineer’s written acceptance.
Architectural · StructuralLatch height set two ways
Door notes and the hardware specification give different latch heights.
Why it matters: Strike preps are cut at fabrication.
What to check: Correct one so a single height governs.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Foodservice, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Structural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
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 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.
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 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.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in November 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.
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: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.