Start with a confirmed drawing package, then trace one location through its plans, sections, schedules, details, and specifications. Record the sources and the decision needed for each discrepancy. A checked box should mean the relevant evidence was reviewed, with unresolved questions kept visible.
Set the scope of this review
Agree on the milestone, areas, and questions before distributing the checklist. A design-development review can identify decisions that still need detailing; a construction issue needs a clearer record of the intended requirements. Use your project deliverables and review responsibilities to determine what is expected now.
Assemble the architectural package, relevant consultant sheets, specifications, and previous review responses. Confirm the issue using the document owner’s records. Different sheet dates may be intentional in a partial reissue, so a date mismatch is a question to resolve rather than automatic proof of an obsolete drawing.
This is a document-coordination checklist, not an exhaustive code analysis. The RAIC’s architectural review checklist is a useful professional reference for planning an internal checking process; it also distinguishes drawing review from separate life-safety checks. Adapt the scope to your project and jurisdiction.
Twelve connections to check
Use the table as a route through the documents. The downloadable version adds fields for the location, source issue, reviewer, decision, revised sources, and closure evidence. Repeat a row for materially different conditions instead of treating one reviewed room as proof that every similar room is coordinated.
| Review area | Open these sources together | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Scope boundary | Cover notes, demolition plans, new-work plans | Can the reader distinguish existing, removed, relocated, and new work at each interface? |
| Room identity | Overall plans, enlarged plans, room finishes | Does the same room retain its number, use, and finish references across the package? |
| Dimension meaning | Plan dimensions, wall types, setting-out details | Are dimensions taken to the same faces or centerlines, with the intended finish allowance? |
| Vertical control | Floor plans, sections, structural levels | Do levels use a stated datum and distinguish finish surfaces from structural elevations? |
| Opening identity | Door and window tags, schedules, elevations | Does each referenced opening resolve to the intended schedule entry and type? |
| Wall transitions | Partition tags, sections, junction details | Is the transition between different wall assemblies described at the actual junction? |
| Ceiling interfaces | Reflected ceiling plans, room sections, services plans | Do ceiling changes and access locations agree with the services occupying the same area? |
| Envelope continuity | Roof plans, wall sections, opening details | Can the intended enclosure layers be followed through roof, wall, and opening junctions? |
| Stair references | Stair plans, sections, landing details | Do the referenced drawings describe the same flights, landings, levels, and adjacent openings? |
| Material identity | Keynotes, assembly details, specification sections | Do repeated material names and performance descriptions refer to the same intended assembly? |
| Consultant interface | Architectural layouts, structural and MEP drawings | Are the affected openings, supports, equipment spaces, and access needs represented in the receiving discipline? |
| Reference closure | Detail callouts, sheet index, referenced sheets | Can each sampled callout be followed to a supplied detail that addresses this condition? |
For each row, use an explicit status such as not reviewed, needs clarification, resolved, or not applicable with a reason. Missing information should remain a visible limitation of the review. It should not become an empty cell that looks like a completed check.
Work through one location end to end
Choose a room, junction, or interface that involves several drawings. For an entrance, open the overall plan, enlarged plan, door schedule, wall section, threshold detail, and relevant specification. Identify the same opening in each source before comparing any values.
Read labels as well as numbers. A door leaf width and a clear-opening width describe different things. A structural slab level and a finished-floor level may differ intentionally. Establish the basis of each annotation before deciding that the documents conflict.
Now follow the dependencies. If the floor finish changes, inspect the threshold and adjacent level notes. If the wall assembly changes, inspect the opening frame and junction details. Record the affected references so the person making the correction knows which other sheets need attention.
Example: a door row needs more context
In Groundbook’s published hotel review, a potential issue connected an entry door’s scheduled protection with its location and the surrounding separation. Reading the schedule alone would not establish whether the condition was appropriate. The reviewer needed the plan location, assembly context, and applicable project requirements.
The door-rating finding preserves that source-based question. It is a selected potential finding, not a record of a final compliance decision or a measured saving. The responsible reviewer must assess the governing requirements and any applicable exceptions.
Use the same method for ordinary coordination questions: identify the component, compare the relevant documents, describe the discrepancy precisely, and ask for the intended condition. Avoid a general comment such as “check all doors” when the evidence supports a specific opening question.
Close the loop across the set
A response saying “updated” is a starting point for verification. Open the revised source and check the actual correction, then follow its dependent references. Record the issue reviewed and the evidence supporting closure. If the response resolves only part of the question, keep the remaining locations or references open.
Separate authoring from verification where the team’s process allows. A reviewer who did not make the change can follow the record without relying on the drafter’s memory. Make the scope of that check explicit: a focused backcheck of accepted comments is different from a fresh review of the entire package.
Use the broader construction document QA/QC checklist to coordinate responsibilities across disciplines. Use the door schedule checklist when an opening needs a more detailed review.
Use AI for a source-linked first pass
Groundbook can review architectural drawings alongside schedules, specifications, consultant PDFs, and uploaded project references. It returns potential findings for the team to investigate. Give the review a defined scope and verify the cited locations before turning a finding into a correction request.
Start with a package your team understands. Compare the useful findings, incorrect findings, and missed known issues, then decide where the tool fits in your existing review process. Explore floor plan and layout checking for a narrower starting scope.