Identify the delegated design scope and the performance criteria it was given, then trace anchorage into the structure, movement into the joints, and the air and water barrier into the adjoining assemblies. Record gaps with both references. Structural adequacy and performance determinations remain with the responsible engineers.
Assemble a reviewable package
Gather the elevations, wall types, wall sections, facade details, glazing schedule, and the performance specification. Add the structural drawings for slab edges and anchors, the energy compliance documents, and the life-safety plan for rated conditions at the floor perimeter.
Agree which areas and which design milestone are being reviewed, and record any document you expected and did not receive. A review can only compare what it is given, so a missing sheet is a finding in its own right. The drawing register template gives you somewhere to record the governing issue before you start.
Twelve document checks
Use one worksheet row per condition rather than per sheet. Where a condition repeats, note the locations you sampled and any exception you found. The CSV adds blank fields for the project location, source issue, reviewer, decision, revised sources, and closure evidence.
| Review area | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| System boundary | Elevations, wall type plan, specification sections | Does each facade area resolve to one system, with the boundary between systems located and detailed? |
| Delegated design scope | General notes, performance specification, submittal list | Who designs the system, what performance criteria were given, and which documents remain outstanding? |
| Anchorage and structure | Anchor details, structural drawings, edge-of-slab tolerances | Is each anchor traceable to a structural element, with the assumed slab edge tolerance stated? |
| Movement | Joint details, structural drift criteria, thermal movement notes | Are the movements the system must accommodate stated, and is the joint that accommodates them detailed? |
| Air and water barrier continuity | Wall sections, transition details, adjacent assemblies | Can the air and water barrier be traced continuously into the roof, foundation, and adjacent wall types? |
| Thermal performance | Assembly schedule, energy compliance documents, thermal break details | Do the assumed assembly values in the energy documents match the assemblies detailed on the drawings? |
| Glazing and performance | Glazing schedule, elevations, specification | Does each glass type resolve to one specification, with the locations requiring safety or fire-rated glazing identified? |
| Opening interfaces | Door and window schedules, facade elevations, head and sill details | Does every opening in the facade appear in a schedule and resolve to a detailed head, jamb, and sill? |
| Fire and smoke | Perimeter fire barrier details, rated assemblies, life-safety plan | Is the perimeter joint between the facade and each floor detailed, with the rated condition identified? |
| Maintenance access | Roof plan, anchor plan, facade access notes | Is the means of access for cleaning and maintenance described, with its supports coordinated to the structure? |
| Mock-ups and testing | Specification, submittal schedule, test criteria | Which mock-ups and tests are required, when, and what acceptance criteria and documents accompany them? |
| Revision closure | Response, revised elevations and details, structural interface | Does the accepted change reach the elevations, the wall sections, and the structural and energy documents? |
Record “needs clarification” when a reference is missing, and reserve “resolved” for a decision supported by documents you have read. If a row does not apply to this project, write why: a blank cell cannot tell a skipped check from a completed one.
Work one condition end to end
Take one typical bay at a floor line. Follow the anchor from the facade detail to the structural element it lands on, and read the slab edge tolerance the detail assumes. Then trace the air and water barrier through that same junction into the floor construction. Finally, check whether a perimeter fire barrier is detailed there and whether the life-safety plan calls for one. That single junction touches four disciplines and is where most facade questions live.
Working one condition all the way through beats skimming every sheet, because it forces each document to answer the same question. When the answers differ, you have a finding with two references attached, which is what a designer needs in order to decide.
Close the loop
A response saying “coordinated” is the start of verification, not the end. Open the revised sheets, confirm the change, then follow it into the dependent documents: the schedule, the detail, the specification section, and the other discipline that relied on it. Record the sources you checked and the evidence that closed the question.
Where the answer is a decision rather than a correction, record the decision and who made it. The guide to prioritising findings covers how to sort what you have found once the list gets long.
Use AI for a source-linked first pass
Groundbook AI can run these comparisons across the whole set at once, returning each difference with both sheets highlighted and the supporting sources linked. It reads drawings, specifications, reports, checklists, and the building codes you upload, including scanned and hand-drawn sheets. Give the review a defined scope, then verify every cited location before turning a finding into a request.
The findings are questions for your team to settle. Design, engineering, and compliance decisions stay with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction.