Pitched shingles in the notes. A flat roof drawn.
The review flags conflicting roof assemblies, shifted column positions and inconsistent foundation levels.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Roof and foundation coordination
Roof specifications, floor plans and foundation sections.
What the review covered
Roof specifications, floor plans and foundation sections.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Roof assemblies conflict
The notes describe pitched shingles; the drawings show a flat membrane roof.
Why it matters: Roofing and insulation requirements are unclear.
What to check: Coordinate one roof assembly.
ArchitecturalColumn positions shift between levels
A ground-floor column is offset from the upper column and foundation.
Why it matters: The load path needs clarification.
What to check: Confirm alignment or detail the intended load transfer.
Architectural · StructuralFoundation levels conflict
One section places the foundation lower than the other sections.
Why it matters: The setting-out depth is unclear.
What to check: Coordinate the governing foundation level.
Architectural · StructuralDrainage pipe misses the foundation opening
The sloping sewer pipe reaches the foundation below its scheduled opening.
Why it matters: The pipe cannot follow its shown route through the opening.
What to check: Coordinate pipe levels and the foundation opening.
Architectural · PlumbingDoor does not fit below the lintel
The lintel height is lower than the scheduled door frame and opening.
Why it matters: The scheduled door cannot fit as detailed.
What to check: Coordinate the lintel and door heights.
ArchitecturalFloor build-up labels are swapped
Floor build-up labels reverse the tile and laminate assemblies shown in the finish schedule.
Why it matters: The assembly assigned to each finish is unclear.
What to check: Correct the labels and coordinate the views.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural and Civil
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.