Three documents specify three different elevator shaft walls.
Architecture specifies stud framing, structure shows precast concrete, and the elevator brief calls for masonry.
School science building coordination
A school science and food-technology building reviewed across architectural, structural, civil and services drawings, design briefs, reports and addenda.
What the review compared
The elevator brief describes shaft construction, pit depth and service travel. The architectural and structural plans describe different shaft walls and floor levels. Reading the brief with both disciplines exposed procurement inputs that did not agree.
Why the structural interfaces matter
The review also traced a column into its pile and pile cap, compared precast layouts with architectural wall tags, and checked supporting beam fire ratings against the project’s requirements. These interfaces need agreement before setting out and trade pricing.
What to verify next
The architect, structural engineer and elevator designer should resolve the wall system, pit and travel together. Code checking was enabled alongside the review of constructability, trade interfaces and document completeness.
6 selected examples from the review
Six distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Supporting beam fire ratings need reconciliation
The steel framing note gives supporting beams less fire resistance than the façade columns require.
Why it matters: Fire-protection pricing could use the wrong rating.
What to check: Verify the governing rating with the engineer and certifier.
StructuralColumn and foundation positions disagree
Architecture and structure place a column differently; structural sheets also disagree on its position.
Why it matters: Column and foundation setting out is unresolved.
What to check: Agree one location and update the affected plans.
Architectural · StructuralPrecast walls become framed partitions
Structure shows precast panels where architecture specifies stud partitions or blockwork.
Why it matters: Wall scope and construction differ between disciplines.
What to check: Agree each wall system and align the plans.
Architectural · StructuralElevator shaft wall systems conflict
Architecture specifies stud walls, structure shows precast concrete, and the elevator brief requires masonry.
Why it matters: Shaft construction and structural anchorage are unresolved.
What to check: Coordinate one shaft system across all three documents.
Architectural · Structural · Vertical TransportationRequired elevator pit is not detailed
The elevator brief requires a pit, but its foundation level remains unconfirmed and drawings lack details.
Why it matters: Excavation and pit construction cannot be coordinated.
What to check: Set the foundation level and detail the selected elevator’s pit.
Structural · Architectural · Vertical TransportationElevator travel differs from floor levels
The elevator brief and selection use less travel than the architectural and structural floor levels indicate.
Why it matters: Elevator procurement inputs disagree.
What to check: Confirm floor levels and reconcile the brief and selection.
Vertical Transportation · Architectural · Structural · HydraulicReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Vertical Transportation, Hydraulic, Fire, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Landscape, ESD, and Survey
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.
Related examples and workflows
Apply this review to your project
- Connect the brief and design response
Trace the intended requirement into architecture, structure and the design narrative.
- Review the pricing basis
Keep incomplete interfaces and unresolved decisions visible before the baseline is agreed.
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.