Bedrooms drawn without doors.
The review flags missing bedroom access, building levels and verandah dimensions.
Page and finding counts are generalized for anonymity, not exact project figures.
Single-story home layout
Single-story residential plans, elevations and sections.
What the review covered
Single-story residential plans, elevations and sections.
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.
Bedrooms have no doorway
The plan and section show bedrooms enclosed by solid walls without doors.
Why it matters: The rooms have no shown access.
What to check: Add and dimension the doors.
ArchitecturalRoof pitch and ridge height are missing
The sections show roof members without stating the pitch or ridge height.
Why it matters: The roof geometry cannot be set out.
What to check: State the pitch and ridge height.
ArchitecturalFloor level and step rise are missing
The raised floor and front steps have no stated level or rise.
Why it matters: The floor and steps cannot be set out.
What to check: Specify the floor level and step rise.
ArchitecturalWindow heights are missing
The drawings show windows without sill or head heights.
Why it matters: The openings cannot be set out vertically.
What to check: Dimension the window heights above the floor.
ArchitecturalVerandah depths are missing
The front and rear verandahs have no depth dimensions.
Why it matters: Their slab depths must be assumed.
What to check: Dimension both verandah depths.
ArchitecturalVerandah column positions are missing
Outer verandah columns have no front-to-back setting-out dimensions.
Why it matters: Their positions must be assumed.
What to check: Dimension the columns from the house walls.
ArchitecturalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Architectural
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority; count breakdowns are omitted for anonymity.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
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 coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 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 and completeness 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.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
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.