40 findings in a 31-page single-family home
Five of the seven high findings are notes on one sheet. A review of a 31-page single-family construction set returned 40 potential findings, with code checking enabled, and the cover's energy notes disagreed with the energy code or claimed credits the drawings do not support.
Counts describe this review only. They do not establish the source project's compliance, safety, or final issue disposition.
Single-family home
A 31-page construction set for a single-family house with a basement and a crawl space, covering architectural, structural, and civil drawings, reviewed with code checking enabled.
Five of the seven high findings are on the cover
A001 claims the energy credits and prints the air-leakage, range-hood, and lighting notes. Five high findings are that sheet disagreeing with the energy code, or claiming credits the drawings do not support.
The other two high findings are the lower floor and the crawl space
The lower floor has no smoke alarm and no carbon monoxide alarm. The crawl space is drawn as unvented, and no radon system is shown for that method.
The other 33 findings are the sheets disagreeing with each other
Ten are medium and 23 are low. They include floor sheathing called out at two thicknesses, a roof membrane named both TPO and PVC, and two different sections printed with the same number.
7 selected findings from the review
7 of the 40 potential findings, ordered by severity. The wording is the review's own.
A201 Lower Floor Plan places no smoke alarm and no carbon monoxide alarm anywhere on the lower floor.
The lower floor is a full basement story: Section B on A400 shows it on the basement slab, with the main floor subfloor at 125'-8". The A201 Lower Floor Plan key defines symbols for a "110V SMOKE DET." and a "CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM", but neither symbol is placed on the lower floor; the only device drawn is the garage "HEAT DETECTION" symbol. A203 Main Floor Plan does place both symbols by its stair, and no general note requires alarms on each floor. Section R314.3 requires a smoke alarm on each additional story, including basements, and Section R315.2.1 requires a carbon monoxide alarm on each level of the dwelling. The lower floor has neither.
Why it matters: The electrician has no smoke or carbon monoxide alarm to wire and interconnect on the lower floor, including at the stair to the main floor.
What to check: Place an interconnected smoke alarm and a carbon monoxide alarm on the A201 lower floor, for example in the hall by STAIR1, using the plan key symbols.
ArchitecturalThe A200 crawl space is unvented under Section R408.3, but no radon system is shown anywhere in the set, which Washington requires for that method.
The A200 Foundation Plan notes design the 1,693 sq ft crawl space with "NO FOUNDATION VENTS REQUIRED", a continuous Class I vapor retarder sealed to the stem wall, and a continuously running exhaust fan sized "PER SECTION R408.3". That is the unvented crawl space method of Section R408.3. No sheet mentions radon or Appendix AF (Radon). The crawl space on the A200 plan, Section B on A400 and detail 5 "FOUNDATION @ CRAWL SPACE" on A500 show no radon vent pipe or collection point below the vapor retarder. Washington's Section R408.3 allows the vents to be left out only where "a radon system shall be installed that meets the requirements of Appendix AF (Radon)", and Section R332.1 applies the Appendix AF radon provisions to all buildings built with this method. The crawl space as drawn lacks that radon system.
Why it matters: The contractor has no radon system to build or price, and without it the vent-free crawl space does not meet the method the notes rely on.
What to check: Add a radon system meeting Appendix AF to the foundation plan and sections, with its pipe route and termination shown. If a radon system is not wanted, redesign the crawl space as a vented crawl space.
ArchitecturalA001 claims 4.5 energy credits for on-site renewable power (option 6.1), but no sheet shows a solar or wind system or its production calculation
A001 claims 9.0 energy credits for this large dwelling, including 4.5 credits for option 6.1, "RENEWABLE ELECTRIC ENERGY". The A 206 roof framing plan, A100 site plan and the remaining drawing notes provide no generating equipment type, solar or wind access documentation, or annual generation calculation. WSEC Table R406.3 requires those items on the permit drawings and awards 0.5 credit per 600 kWh/year, so 4.5 credits requires (4.5 ÷ 0.5) × 600 = 5,400 kWh/year. Without support for option 6.1, the other claimed options total only 4.5 of the required 9.0 credits.
Why it matters: Half of the credits the energy compliance relies on do not qualify as drawn, so the house is 4.5 credits short unless a generation system is designed or other options are chosen.
What to check: Add the solar (or wind) system to the drawings with its equipment type, solar access documentation and a production calculation showing at least 5,400 kWh a year, or replace option 6.1 with other options worth 4.5 credits.
Architectural · ElectricalA001 claims energy credit options 3.6 and 5.3 without the heat pump efficiency or the water heater type and efficiency those options require
A001 claims 1.0 credit for option 3.6, "HIGH EFFICIENCY HVAC", and 0.5 credit for option 5.3, "EFFICIENT WATER HEATING". Its mechanical/plumbing notes give no qualifying equipment efficiency, and A201 labels the forced-air unit by capacity only; no selected heat-pump or water-heater efficiency appears elsewhere in the set. WSEC Table R406.3 requires the permit drawings to specify equipment type and minimum efficiency for both credits. Option 3.6 requires a centrally ducted air-source heat pump meeting its 9.4 HSPF2 (heating seasonal performance factor) criterion or its qualifying cold-climate alternative; option 5.3 requires an Energy Star gas or propane water heater with UEF (uniform energy factor) of at least 0.80. The drawings therefore do not document qualification for these 1.5 credits.
Why it matters: As drawn, 1.5 of the 9.0 claimed credits do not qualify, and the installers have no efficiency or water heater type to buy to.
What to check: Specify the selected heat-pump type and minimum efficiency meeting option 3.6, including its alternative where applicable, and the Energy Star gas or propane water heater with minimum UEF 0.80 for option 5.3. Otherwise revise the claimed options and credit total.
Mechanical · PlumbingA001 air leakage note accepts up to 5 air changes per hour, above the 4.0 limit in WSEC Section R402.4.1.3.1
The Air Leakage and Testing note on A001 says the dwelling shall be tested and verified as having an air leakage rate "NOT EXCEEDING 5 AIR CHANGES PER HOUR", with a blower door at 50 pascals. WSEC Section R402.4.1.3.1 limits any dwelling unit, under any compliance path, to 4.0 air changes per hour at the same 50 pascal test pressure. No other sheet prints an air leakage target, so the only printed pass limit is looser than the code allows. A house that tests between 4.0 and 5.0 air changes per hour would pass the note but fail the code.
Why it matters: The builder's air-sealing target and the blower-door pass limit are set too loose, so a house built to the note can still fail the required test.
What to check: Change the A001 note to a maximum air leakage rate of 4.0 air changes per hour at 50 pascals.
ArchitecturalA001 range hood table allows 60% capture efficiency over an electric range, below the 65% in WAC Table M1505.4.4.3, and keeps a stale 100 cfm hood minimum
A001, "IRC TABLE 1505.4.4.3", allows an electric-range hood with "60% CE OR 160 CFM", where CE means capture efficiency. WAC Section M1505.4.4.3 lets a range hood comply by either airflow or capture efficiency, and WAC Table M1505.4.4.3 sets that choice at 65% CE or 160 cfm for a hood over an electric range. No other sheet prints a capture-efficiency value, so the 60% option allows a hood below the code minimum. Exception 2 of the A001 "M1505.4.4: LOCAL EXHAUST FANS" note also sets a 100 cfm minimum for a range hood or downdraft fan. The same sheet already gives the 160/250 cfm hood values and the 300 cfm downdraft requirement, so exception 2 is a stale note.
Why it matters: A range hood chosen to the A001 table at 60% capture efficiency, or to the 100 cfm exception, could fall below the Washington minimum for kitchen exhaust and have to be replaced.
What to check: Change the electric range value in the A001 table to 65% CE or 160 cfm, and delete exception 2 (the 100 cfm range hood and downdraft minimum) from the A001 local exhaust fan note.
MechanicalA001 lighting note requires only 90% of permanently installed lamps to be high-efficacy; WSEC Section R404.1 requires all of them
The Lighting Equipment note on A001 says "A MINIMUM OF 90% OF PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LAMPS IN LIGHTING FIXTURES SHALL BE HIGH-EFFICACY LAMPS (MIN. 65 LUMENS PER WATT)." WSEC Section R404.1 requires all permanently installed lighting fixtures, except kitchen appliance lighting fixtures, to contain only high-efficacy lighting sources. No other sheet states a lighting efficacy requirement, so the note allows up to one lamp in ten that the code does not permit.
Why it matters: Fixtures and lamps chosen to the note may include lamps that do not meet the energy code and would have to be replaced.
What to check: Revise the A001 note to require only high-efficacy lighting sources in all permanently installed lighting fixtures, excluding kitchen appliance lighting fixtures.
ElectricalHow the findings were distributed
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural, Structural, Civil, Mechanical, and Electrical
The review returned 28 architectural, 5 structural, 4 civil, 2 mechanical, and 1 electrical potential findings.
7 higher-priority findings to investigate first
The review assigned 7 high, 10 medium, 23 low severity ratings. Severity indicates potential impact if a finding is confirmed.
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.
40 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 40 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?
Yes, an anonymous review. These findings come from a Groundbook review completed in September 2026.
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.