Tank supports drawn. Their section unspecified.
Tank supports and timber roofing are drawn without the specifications needed to build them.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Roof and water-tank supports
Water-tank supports, timber roof framing and structural connections.
What the review covered
Water-tank supports, timber roof framing and structural connections.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Some examples separate details within the same finding. Identifying details omitted.
Tank support profile is unspecified
The tank-support label gives an outside size but no section profile.
Why it matters: The fabricator cannot select the metal section.
What to check: Specify the support profile.
Structural · ArchitecturalTank support thickness is missing
The tank-support label omits the metal thickness.
Why it matters: The member specification is incomplete.
What to check: Specify the support thickness.
Structural · ArchitecturalTank support bearings and fixings are missing
The tank supports have no stated bearing lengths or wall-fixing details.
Why it matters: Their wall connections cannot be prepared.
What to check: Detail bearing lengths and wall fixings.
Structural · ArchitecturalRoof timber sizes are missing
The roof drawings show timber members without sizes.
Why it matters: The carpenter cannot order the members.
What to check: Specify the timber sizes.
Structural · ArchitecturalRoof timber spacing and wood are unspecified
The roof drawings omit timber spacing and the wood specification.
Why it matters: The roof assembly remains undefined.
What to check: Specify member spacing and wood.
Structural · ArchitecturalColumn-to-roof connections are missing
Extended columns have no detailed connection to the roof timbers.
Why it matters: The roof connections cannot be built from the drawings.
What to check: Detail the column-to-timber connections.
Structural · ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural and Architectural
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.