The fire safety report rates the gym door to the exit stair; the floor plan does not.
The fire safety report sets ratings for doors, windows, walls and steel, and the architectural drawings leave several of them out.
School extension fire safety report
Civil, architectural and plumbing drawings for an elementary school extension, read with the specifications, technical reports, fire safety report and drawing lists.
What the review compared
The review read the civil, architectural and plumbing drawings for a school extension with the specifications, the technical reports and the fire safety report. Each fire rating, exit and fire access measure in the report was traced to the plans, sections and schedules, and the plumbing drawings were read against the reports.
Where the drawings miss the report
Several doors, windows and walls lack the ratings the fire safety report sets, the steel protection is shorter and of a type the report does not assume, and the fire access gate has no alarm-driven opener. The plumbing drawings leave twelve showers without water, and the reports disagree on how sewage leaves the site.
What to verify next
The architect and the fire safety engineer should carry each rating and measure from the report into the plans, schedules and specifications before pricing. Code checking was enabled; examples that cite a requirement follow the regulations the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Exit stair door has no fire rating
The report rates the gym door to the exit stair; the plan gives only its size.
Why it matters: Smoke could reach the escape route.
What to check: Add the rating to the plan and door schedule.
Architectural · Fire protectionWindow into the protected corridor is unrated
Plans show a window from an escape corridor to a roof without the report’s rating.
Why it matters: A standard window would have to be replaced.
What to check: Add the rated fixed glazing to plans and schedule.
Architectural · Fire protectionEquipment store walls fall short of their rating
The report needs three-hour walls around the equipment store; the plan draws a thinner block.
Why it matters: The walls would be rebuilt or lined.
What to check: Choose a wall build-up the report rates high enough.
Architectural · Fire protectionSteel fire protection falls short
A note specifies 30-minute intumescent paint; the report requires longer protection and does not use paint.
Why it matters: The protection could not be documented at handover.
What to check: Set the rating by location and a board or spray system.
Architectural · Structural · Fire protectionFire access gate has no automatic opener
The report assumes an alarm-opened gate; the site design only provides for a future motor.
Why it matters: The gate would stay shut in a fire.
What to check: Add the operator and wiring, or revise the report.
Fire protection · CivilTwelve gym showers have no water supply
Plans draw showers and their drains; the water plan connects only the washbasins.
Why it matters: The plumbing report also counts too few showers.
What to check: Add hot and cold supplies and update the fixture count.
Plumbing · ArchitecturalSewer pumped in one report, gravity on the plan
The plumbing report adds a pumping station; the site plan and summary connect by gravity.
Why it matters: A pumping station is a large price difference.
What to check: Confirm one connection method across all documents.
Plumbing · CivilReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Fire protection, Plumbing, Civil, and Structural
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.