The rafters are designed for a composition or metal roof, and every architectural sheet specifies slate tile.
The architectural set, the engineer’s structural drawings and the floor truss drawings for a two-story house were read as one permit package, and the roof design load, the shear walls and the wall assembly do not match what the architectural sheets build.
Two-story house roof load and shear walls
Architectural permit drawings, structural design drawings and engineered floor truss drawings with the truss layout for a two-story single-family house, read against one another and the residential, energy and electrical code sections the review cited.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural permit drawings, the engineer’s structural design drawings and the engineered floor truss drawings and layout for a two-story single-family house as one package. Its instructions asked for missing or inconsistent information, drawings checked against specifications, missing compliance and conflicts across disciplines, with the source cited for each finding. Code checking was enabled.
Where structure and architecture part ways
The structural sheets were designed for a different house in small ways that add up. The rafters carry a lighter roof than the slate tile every architectural sheet specifies, one roof zone is nailed loosest where its uplift is highest, an interior shear wall stands on the slab beside its grade beam, and three shear walls are counted at full length through door openings. Around them, the hold-down anchors, the rafter ties and the floor design loads the truss supplier needs are unsized or named several ways. On the architectural side, the stucco wall assembly, the ceiling insulation, a stair landing window, a smoke alarm beside a shower room and the lot description draw permit comments of their own.
What to verify next
The engineer of record should restate the roof dead load for the specified roofing and recheck the rafters, then revise the shear wall plan so every wall has a beam under it and sheathed segments between its doors, and give the truss supplier the floor loads. Examples that cite a requirement follow the residential, energy and electrical code sections the review cited; every example is a question for the designer, the engineer and the building department.
12 selected examples from the review
Twelve distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Roof framed for a lighter roof
The rafter design covers composition or metal roofing; the architectural sheets specify slate tile.
Why it matters: The rafters are not shown to carry the roof drawn.
What to check: Restate the roof dead load and resize the rafters.
Structural · ArchitecturalLightest nailing where uplift is highest
One roof zone is nailed more loosely than the field, though its uplift is highest.
Why it matters: Sheathing holds least where pulled hardest.
What to check: Match that zone’s fastening to the other high-uplift zone.
StructuralShear wall stands on the slab
An interior shear wall sits about a foot off the grade beam, on the thin slab.
Why it matters: Its anchor bolts have no designed foundation.
What to check: Move the beam under the wall or add one.
StructuralShear walls counted across doors
Three interior shear walls are noted at full length, and each contains a door.
Why it matters: The bracing length and the hold-downs at the doors are unknown.
What to check: Show sheathed segments with hold-downs, or detail a perforated wall.
Structural · ArchitecturalHouse drawn across two lots
The lot line runs through the house and pool; the legal description names one lot.
Why it matters: The setbacks drawn hold only if the lots are combined.
What to check: Name both lots or the replat on the set.
Architectural · CivilLanding window lacks safety glazing
A large stair landing window sits low above the landing and is scheduled as plain glass.
Why it matters: Ordinary glass could be ordered for a hazardous location.
What to check: Mark the window tempered in the window schedule.
ArchitecturalSmoke alarm beside a shower room
A bedroom smoke alarm is drawn closer to a bathroom door than the cited section allows.
Why it matters: Steam can set it off, and the inspector can move it.
What to check: Relocate the alarm toward the room center.
Electrical · ArchitecturalStucco wall has one barrier layer
Stucco over wood sheathing shows one house wrap and no drainage space.
Why it matters: Water past the stucco can reach the sheathing.
What to check: Draw two barrier layers, or one with a drainage gap.
Architectural · StructuralCeiling insulation below the cited value
Plate details give a lower ceiling R-value without the full-height eave condition that permits it.
Why it matters: The energy review will not accept it as drawn.
What to check: Raise the insulation or redraw the eave.
ArchitecturalNo floor design loads for the trusses
Design notes give roof and wind loads but no second-floor live or dead load.
Why it matters: The truss supplier has no stated load to check.
What to check: Add the floor loads, including finishes and partitions.
StructuralHold-down anchors not sized
The hold-down detail is a product picture with no rod size, embedment or location.
Why it matters: Anchors set before the pour may be guessed or missed.
What to check: Size the anchors and locate them on the foundation plan.
StructuralRafter tie named three ways
Three sheets name different rafter-to-plate ties, with no uplift per connection.
Why it matters: Framer and inspector cannot tell which tie governs.
What to check: Name one tie or give the uplift and allowed products.
StructuralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural, Architectural, and Electrical
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 November 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.
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.