Two windows marked for replacement have no entry in the window schedule.
The floor plans, their notes and the window schedule each describe the replacement work, and they do not list the same openings.
Window and door schedule renovation
Architectural floor plans for a four-level building renovation, with a window and door schedule and work notes for replacing and restoring openings.
What the review compared
The review read the four floor plans with their legends and work notes beside the window and door schedule. Each replacement, restoration and new item marked on a plan was traced to a schedule entry and a note, and each schedule entry back to the plan.
Where the sources disagree
The plans, notes and schedule list different openings for glass replacement, blinds, shutters and grilles. One window has two materials and another two heights, a skylight appears in the schedule but not on the plan, and repeated door tags make counting by tag unreliable.
What to verify next
The architect should reconcile the opening list in the notes, the schedule and the plan symbols before the replacement work is priced or ordered. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the responsible designer.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Replacement windows missing from the schedule
Two windows marked for replacement on one plan have no window schedule entry.
Why it matters: Their type, size and shutter repair cannot be priced.
What to check: Add them to a schedule entry or give them their own.
ArchitecturalGlass replacement list differs from the plan
A note lists windows for double glazing the plan leaves unmarked, and omits others.
Why it matters: The glass units to order are uncertain.
What to check: Mark each window consistently in the note, schedule and plan.
ArchitecturalOne window has two materials
The plan symbol marks a French window as aluminum; its schedule entry calls for timber.
Why it matters: Product, supplier and price depend on the material.
What to check: Decide the material and align symbol and schedule.
ArchitecturalPlan symbols call for unlisted work
Plan symbols call for blinds, shutters and grilles that the notes and schedule omit.
Why it matters: A takeoff from the notes undercounts this work.
What to check: List every marked opening or remove the symbols.
ArchitecturalSkylight scheduled but not drawn
A schedule entry gives three windows a skylight; the plan draws it at only two.
Why it matters: The number of skylights to replace is unclear.
What to check: Check the existing opening and correct plan or schedule.
ArchitecturalWindow height differs by 20 cm
A French window’s plan height differs from its schedule size by 20 cm.
Why it matters: A made-to-measure frame cannot be ordered.
What to check: Correct the plan dimension or the schedule size.
ArchitecturalDoor tags repeat on every floor
On all four plans, some door tags are used twice for different doors.
Why it matters: Work counted by tag lands on the wrong door.
What to check: Renumber one door of each repeated tag.
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 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.