01 · Cross-sheet conflicts
Conflicts that only exist between pages become checkable: plan against detail, detail against schedule, schedule against spec and code.
- Across sheets and disciplines
- Across drawings, specs, checklists, and code sources
How Groundbook AI reads a set
A knowledge graph of your drawing set
Findings that read the whole set, not one page at a time.
Pay as you go. Project reviews start at $100.
The Groundbook AI knowledge graph is a map of everything in a construction document set and how it connects. Every callout, detail, schedule row, plan label, and code section is tied to the spot where it is printed and linked to the things it refers to on other sheets. Groundbook AI builds this graph first, then reviews the set as a whole—which is how it catches the conflicts that never appear on the same page.
The problem
A drawing set is one design spread across hundreds of pages
The detail is on one sheet. The schedule is on another. The note that changes both is on a third, and the spec section that governs all of them is in a different document entirely.
Most review tools read a page at a time. A page-by-page reader can check what sits on the same sheet, but the expensive errors rarely do: the plan that disagrees with its detail, the detail that disagrees with the schedule, the schedule row that quietly contradicts the spec or the code. Those conflicts live between pages, so a page at a time is exactly the wrong unit of review.
The graph
What Groundbook AI builds before it reviews anything
Groundbook AI reads the set the way it was designed: as one connected thing. Every callout, detail, schedule row, plan label, and code section becomes part of a knowledge graph, with two kinds of connection:
- Where it is printed. Each element is anchored to its exact spot on its sheet—the words and shapes themselves, not just a page number.
- What it refers to. A callout is linked to the detail it points at. A schedule row is linked to the plan elements it governs and the spec section that defines it. A note is linked to every sheet it changes.
The review then runs over the graph, not the pages. Anything connected can be checked against everything it is connected to: plan against detail, detail against schedule, schedule against spec and code. When a finding depends on two drawings of the same place lining up, it comes with a drawing overlay.
What changes
Why findings from a graph are better
02 · Exact evidence
Each finding highlights the words and shapes it is based on, on every sheet involved. No "see elsewhere."
- Both sides of a conflict shown
- Verifiable by the responsible professional
03 · One issue per root cause
Related symptoms are grouped, so one fix clears them all. Not twenty comments about the same mistake.
- The correction named once
- Symptoms listed under it
04 · Full coverage
Because the graph knows what is in the set, you can see what was reviewed—and what was not.
- No silent gaps
- Coverage you can inspect
05 · Checked before published
A second independent pass tries to disprove each finding before it reaches you.
- Findings framed for verification
- Weak findings filtered out
06 · Gets better with your team
Your reviewers' accept and reject decisions sharpen the next check.
- Feedback flows into future reviews
- Your standards, learned over time
Search, done for you
Search across the construction documents
Teams ask for AI document search because the question is usually "where else does this appear?" A door tag, a level, an equipment mark, a spec section: the answer is spread across sheets, schedules, and the project manual. The knowledge graph is that search, run once over the whole set and kept.
The difference from a search box is what comes back. A query returns every place a term appears. A finding returns the places that disagree, with the exact words and shapes on each sheet highlighted, so the review reads as a list of questions to settle rather than a list of hits to open. The sources sit beside each finding, in context, for the reviewer to confirm.
AI-assisted, professional-led
Professional judgment stays with your team
The graph organizes the set and the findings organize the questions. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, and authorities having jurisdiction retain every professional decision.
- Evidence linked to every possible finding
- Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action
- Results typically ready in 20 minutes to 24 hours, depending on project size
Keep reading
Related pages
Questions, answered
Frequently asked questions
What is a drawing set knowledge graph?
A map of everything in a construction document set and how it connects: every callout, detail, schedule row, plan label, and code section, tied to the spot where it is printed and linked to the things it refers to on other sheets and in other documents. Groundbook AI builds this graph before it reviews anything.
How is reviewing a graph different from reviewing pages?
A page-by-page review can only compare what sits on the same page. Most costly document errors live between pages: a plan that disagrees with a detail, a detail that disagrees with a schedule, a schedule row that conflicts with a spec section or a code requirement. Reviewing the graph makes those cross-sheet relationships checkable.
What does a finding look like?
One finding per root cause. It names the problem, shows the exact words and shapes it is based on, highlighted on every sheet involved, and states the correction that resolves it. Related symptoms are grouped under the same finding, so one fix clears them all.
Does the review improve over time?
Yes. Every finding is challenged by a second independent pass before it is published, and your reviewers' accept and reject decisions sharpen the next check.
Can I search across construction documents with it?
Every finding is a search result across the set: it names the sheets, schedule rows, specification sections, and code sections involved and links to each one. The review runs the cross-document search for you and returns the disagreements it finds, rather than waiting for a query. Sources are shown beside each finding so the reviewer can read them in context.
Does this replace professional review?
No. The graph organizes the set and the findings organize the questions. Design, engineering, code, and construction decisions remain with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction.
Related examples and workflows
Apply this review to your project
- Plan a broader firm knowledge workflow
Define a bounded archive-search pilot with approved sources and verifiable answers.
See what a whole-set review finds on your set
Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project.