The fire strategy makes the office a rated enclosure, but the partition plan tags its walls as ordinary partitions.
The construction drawing set for a retail store fit-out in a shopping mall unit was read across its fire strategy, partition and door schedules, shopfront, joinery, ceiling, mechanical, lighting and fire alarm sheets, and several life safety and accessibility provisions are drawn one way and specified or scheduled another.
Retail store fit-out
A retail store fit-out construction drawing set for a shopping mall unit, with architecture, shopfront, joinery, ceilings, mechanical, electrical, fire alarm, the fire strategy and the specification sheets in one package, read against itself and the building and accessibility regulations the review cited.
What the review compared
The review read one fit-out construction drawing package for a store in a shopping mall unit: the general notes and fire strategy, partition, ceiling and door schedules, shopfront and joinery drawings, the mechanical, lighting, power and fire alarm layouts, and the specification sheets bound into the set. Its instructions asked for missing or inconsistent information across plans, details, schedules and specifications, the information needed for permitting, pricing and construction, and document health issues such as broken references. Code checking was enabled, so the egress, escape lighting and accessibility provisions were also read against the building and accessibility regulations the review cited.
Where the set disagrees with itself
The fire strategy sets up rated enclosures for the office and store, but the partition plan tags their walls as ordinary partitions, ducts cross the office wall with a single damper and the specified damper class lacks the rating the penetration table asks for. The two exits the strategy relies on swing into the shop, depend on a bolted leaf for their width and, for the second exit, have no sign. Escape lighting is designed for a shorter duration than the cited rules require, and neither the fitting rooms nor the cash desk offers an accessible option. Elsewhere, joinery, shopfront and lighting schedules give different sizes and counts from the drawings they describe.
What to verify next
The architect and fire engineer should settle the enclosure walls, dampers and exit doors in one revision, the electrical designer should resize the escape lighting and add the second exit sign, and the fitting rooms and cash desk need an accessible layout before joinery is ordered. Examples that cite a requirement follow the regulations the review cited; every example is a question for the responsible designer and the authority having jurisdiction.
11 selected examples from the review
Eleven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Rated office walls tagged as plain partitions
The fire strategy rates the office and store enclosures; the plan tags non-rated partitions.
Why it matters: The walls would be built stopping below the slab.
What to check: Tag every enclosure wall with the rated type.
Architectural · Fire ProtectionDucts cross the rated wall undampered
Four ducts cross the rated office wall; the layout shows no damper.
Why it matters: The separation would be breached, and one damper priced.
What to check: Add dampers at every crossing or reroute.
Mechanical · Fire ProtectionExit doors swing into the shop
Both exit pairs swing inward; the cited rules require egress swing for this load.
Why it matters: Escaping occupants would pull against the flow.
What to check: Swing both pairs toward the mall.
Architectural · Fire ProtectionExit pairs rely on a bolted leaf
Manual flush bolts hold one leaf, yet both leaves count as exit width.
Why it matters: Each exit is narrower than the cited minimum.
What to check: Widen the active leaf; specify accepted hardware.
Architectural · Fire ProtectionSecond exit has no sign
The fire strategy relies on two exits; the lighting layout signs only one.
Why it matters: Shoppers on the long front have no sign to it.
What to check: Add the sign and raise the scheduled count.
Electrical · Fire ProtectionEscape lighting rated for one hour
Escape lighting is designed for one hour; the cited rules require ninety minutes.
Why it matters: Fittings bought to that rating would go dark early.
What to check: Specify longer-rated fittings and recheck the layout.
Electrical · Fire ProtectionNeither fitting room is accessible
Both fitting rooms are too narrow for a turning circle; their benches are undersized.
Why it matters: The store would open without an accessible fitting room.
What to check: Redesign one with turning space and a compliant bench.
ArchitecturalCash desk has no lowered section
The only sales counter is full height along its length.
Why it matters: A wheelchair user cannot reach it, and adding a section means rework.
What to check: Add a lowered section to the joinery drawings.
ArchitecturalLining fire classes disagree
Notes, lining sheets, specification and ceiling types give different fire classes for the escape vestibule.
Why it matters: Linings could be supplied below the class the notes require.
What to check: Set one class and correct every sheet.
Architectural · Fire ProtectionDamper class lacks insulation rating
The penetration table asks for an insulation-rated damper; the specification omits it.
Why it matters: Ordered dampers would not carry the wall’s rating.
What to check: Specify the rated class or confirm with the fire engineer.
Mechanical · Fire ProtectionCallouts cite sheets the set lacks
Callouts on architectural and services sheets cite sheets the package does not contain.
Why it matters: Readers cannot find the details those callouts rely on.
What to check: Add the missing sheets or correct the references.
Architectural · Mechanical · ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Fire Protection, Mechanical, Electrical, and Interior
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 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.
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.