The isolation instruction removes a fuse that does not feed the cabinet being isolated.
Four discipline drawings of the same loop were checked against each other and against the specification items that go out to bid.
Tram turning loop drawings and specification
Track, power supply, switches and signalling, and civil drawings for a tram turning loop, with the civil specification items for the bid.
What the review compared
The review checked the four discipline drawings against each other for every object shown on at least one of them, such as switches, cabinets, pits, cables and surfaces. It then checked each drawing against the specification items that will be priced. Building code requirements were out of scope.
Where drawings and items disagree
Quantities for the grass track, geotextile and seeding agree neither with the drawing nor with each other. Pits, transformer structures, ducts and cabinets carry different counts, types or numbers, and some items both reuse and replace the same equipment.
What to verify next
The track, power, signalling and civil designers should settle each object’s status and number, and the specification writer should then align the items before the work goes to bid. Code checking was not enabled; the examples are questions for the responsible designers.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Grass track quantities exceed the drawing
Specification items price a larger grass track area than the civil drawing’s surfaces add up to.
Why it matters: Bids rest on unclear quantities.
What to check: Confirm the area and align the items.
CivilTwo cable pits are new and existing
The specification prices six new cable pits; the drawing colors two of them as existing.
Why it matters: Supply and removal pricing is unclear.
What to check: Decide each pit’s status and align both.
SignallingOne transformer structure or two
The signalling drawing shows two new transformer structures; the specification counts one.
Why it matters: Bids may omit one structure.
What to check: Correct the count or define the item.
SignallingCable duct type conflicts
The drawing’s line type calls for one duct size; the specification item prescribes another.
Why it matters: The contractor cannot tell which duct to buy.
What to check: Align the drawing and the item.
SignallingOne cabinet has two numbers
The power and signalling drawings give the cabinet at the same mast different numbers.
Why it matters: The wrong cabinet could be modified or registered.
What to check: Confirm the cabinet and use one number.
Electrical · SignallingIsolation names the wrong supply mast
The item for de-energizing a cabinet removes the fuse at a mast that feeds another cabinet.
Why it matters: Removing that fuse would leave the cabinet live.
What to check: Correct the mast reference.
SignallingCabinet foundation is reused and renewed
One item reuses the cabinet foundation; the item it references asks for a new one.
Why it matters: Supply or reuse cannot be priced.
What to check: Decide and describe one foundation.
SignallingReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Signalling, Civil, Track, and Electrical
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
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 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.
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.