Equipment scheduled. Electrical circuits missing.
Equipment lacks electrical connections, while ventilation selections fall below their own calculations.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Shelter services coordination
Shelter mechanical, plumbing, electrical and calculation documents.
What the review covered
Shelter mechanical, plumbing, electrical and calculation documents.
What to verify
Check the conflicting or missing information with the responsible designer.
6 selected examples from the review
Concise summaries; identifying details omitted.
Equipment circuits are missing
Scheduled fans, pumps, heaters and dryers lack electrical branch circuits.
Why it matters: Their power supply is unresolved.
What to check: Add the circuits and update the electrical diagrams.
Electrical · Mechanical · PlumbingEmergency airflow total is incorrect
The airflow inputs exceed the printed total and selected capacity.
Why it matters: The selected supply falls below the calculated demand.
What to check: Correct the total and verify the selection.
MechanicalSelected airflow falls below the minimum
The selected airflow is lower than the note’s own air-change calculation.
Why it matters: The selection does not meet the stated minimum.
What to check: Select airflow that meets the calculation.
MechanicalAssumed surge protection is missing
The risk calculation assumes surge protection absent from electrical diagrams and specifications.
Why it matters: The calculation relies on an undocumented protection measure.
What to check: Specify the protection or revise the calculation.
ElectricalEquipment grounding system is undefined
Panels and the generator reference a grounding system absent from the electrical plans.
Why it matters: The grounding connections cannot be verified.
What to check: Show the grounding system, connections and conductors.
ElectricalGenerator ventilation uses another rating
Ventilation calculations use a smaller generator than the electrical drawings specify.
Why it matters: The calculated airflow may be insufficient.
What to check: Confirm the generator and recalculate ventilation from its requirements.
Mechanical · ElectricalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Mechanical, Electrical, Architectural, Plumbing, Equipment, and General
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.