They hide in plain sight
Each sheet looks right on its own. The error only shows when you put two sheets side by side.
References · Tags · Schedules · Spelling
Find the small errors that fill QA/QC markups
Wrong sheet numbers. Tags that change between plans. Schedules that miss equipment on the plans. Typos that change what a note means. We check every sheet for these, so your senior engineers can spend their time on design and code.
Why hand this to AI
Senior engineers should not spend time on this
Readability errors do not need senior judgment, but every one still has to be found. This is the work AI does well: checking every tag, callout, and schedule row against the rest of the set. Code and design questions still need an experienced engineer. Readability does not.
They show up on every set
Tags, schedules, and sheet numbers are typed by hand. On a live project, they drift apart as the design changes.
They cause real mistakes
A swapped tag can connect pipe to the wrong unit. A wrong callout sends the contractor to the wrong detail.
AI is good at them
Matching one tag across dozens of sheets is slow for a person and quick for AI. We read every sheet and check each reference against the rest of the set.
What we check
Every sheet, compared with the rest of the set
Add or remove checks in your review instructions. The examples show the kind of error each check looks for.
| Check | What we compare | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Sheet references | Callouts, section marks, and the drawing index against the sheets in the set. | A section mark points to E-605, but the detail is on E-604. |
| Equipment tags | The same unit across plans, enlarged plans, and diagrams. Duplicate and missing tags. | An exhaust fan is EF-2 on the roof plan and EF-3 on the enlarged plan. |
| Schedules and plans | Tags on the plans against schedule rows, including counts and values. | The schedule lists 20 VAV boxes; the plans show 30. |
| Notes and keynotes | Each note against the item it points to. | A smoke exhaust fan points to the note for a normal exhaust fan. |
| Terms and abbreviations | System names and abbreviations across sheets and against the legend. | One sheet says CHW SUPPLY, another says CHILLED WATER SUPPLY. |
| Spelling | Notes, schedule headers, and detail titles. | A detail labels the secondary condensate drain “SECONDARY DRAWING.” |
| Your QA/QC checklist | Your firm’s drafting and title-block rules, one item at a time. | Paste the checklist into the review instructions or upload it as a PDF. |
From published reviews
What these errors look like in real sets
These findings come from two published mechanical reviews. Each one is a potential issue for the design team to confirm.
Hydronic plant review · Medium
Nine VAV units shown on plans have no schedule entries
Two plans tag nine VAV units numbered VAV-39 and up. The schedule ends at VAV-38, so none of them has an inlet size or airflow.
Read the case studyMulti-level MEP coordination · Medium
Two condenser tag pairs are swapped between the Level 02 layouts
The ductwork and pipework drawings put the same two tags on opposite units. Following both could connect refrigerant piping to the wrong system.
Read the case studyMulti-level MEP coordination · Low
Placeholder references remain on the Level 00 pipework sheets
Section markers on four sheets still point to template drawing numbers, so readers cannot find the sections they refer to.
Read the case studyInside Groundbook
See each error on the drawing
Each finding opens on the sheet, with a box around the exact spot and links to the other sheets involved. Step through findings one at a time, or filter by discipline, file, or label.
How it works
From upload to a clean set
Upload the set
Upload the drawing PDFs. Add your QA/QC checklist if you have one. No code books are needed for these checks.
Say what counts
Name the design phase and what to skip. For example: “50% DD. Blank schedule values are placeholders; do not flag them.” Your instructions are saved for the next project.
Work through the findings
Open each finding on the drawing. Dismiss what does not matter and assign the rest to the person who will fix it.
What this review does not do
A readability review checks that the set is consistent and easy to follow. It does not check the engineering design or approve the drawings. Your team decides what to fix. For design questions, add a building code review or cross-discipline coordination to the same project.
Questions, answered
FAQs
What is a drawing readability review?
It checks that a drawing set says the same thing everywhere and is easy to follow. References lead to the right sheet, tags match, schedules match the plans, and notes are spelled correctly. It covers the drafting part of QA/QC, before engineering judgment.
Is this just a spell checker?
No. Spelling is one check. The more useful checks compare sheets with each other: a tag on a plan against its schedule row, or a callout against the sheet it points to.
Our schedules are incomplete at this phase. Will every blank become a finding?
Not if you tell us. Write it in the review instructions, for example: “This is 50% DD. Blank schedule values are placeholders.” Instructions are saved, so the next review starts from them.
Do I need to upload building codes?
No. Readability checks compare the set with itself. Add code references only if you also want a building code review.
Can we use our firm’s QA/QC checklist?
Yes. Paste the items into the review instructions or upload the checklist as a PDF reference. Each item is checked across the set.
Does this replace our QA/QC review?
No. It clears the tedious cross-checks first. Your reviewers still decide what to fix and spend their time on design and code questions.
How much does it cost?
Pay-as-you-go reviews start at $100. The project quote is shown after setup, before payment.
Keep exploring
Continue your review
Clear the small errors first
Bring a set your team is about to QA/QC.