Trace each door number from the floor plan to the door schedule, hardware set, and applicable specification clauses. Check operation and electrical interfaces with the responsible reviewers before closing a discrepancy in the hardware list.
Assemble the review package
Gather floor plans, the door and frame schedule, hardware sets, door details, and the hardware specification. Include access-control drawings and sequences for electrified openings, plus the project’s life-safety and accessibility design information. Review one complete opening first, then use its resolved condition to identify genuinely matching openings.
WBDG publishes UFGS 08 71 00: Door Hardware as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 16, 2026). Use your project’s issued specification and amendments for the actual comparison; the guide specification does not automatically govern your project. The checklist below is an original suggested review workflow, not a reproduction of the UFGS requirements.
Eight checks to run against the issued set
Use one record per location or system. The CSV contains the same eight prompts plus fields for source revisions, observed evidence, the review owner, the decision, and closure references.
| Check | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Opening identity | Plan door number + door and hardware schedules | Does each door point to an existing hardware set? Record duplicate numbers and schedule entries that no longer appear on plan. |
| Leaf and frame | Door construction + hardware requirements | Are size, material, configuration, and preparation coordinated with the selected hardware? Flag incompatible or unspecified preparation for review. |
| Operation | Room use and swing + hardware function | Does the stated function explain how each side of the opening is used? Ask the designer to resolve ambiguous access and exit behavior. |
| Rated assembly | Life-safety reference + door and hardware information | Do the documents identify the intended assembly and associated component requirements consistently? Refer technical acceptance to qualified reviewers. |
| Pairs and meeting edges | Pair detail + hardware set | Are active and inactive leaves, meeting-edge conditions, and any sequence dependencies described for the actual configuration? |
| Electrical interface | Hardware set + power and access-control documents | Are powered devices, power supplies, wiring pathways, and control interfaces assigned and referenced? Separate mechanical function from the electrical sequence. |
| Finish and environment | Opening location + hardware finish clauses | Does the selected finish and material basis address the opening’s documented exposure and appearance requirements? |
| Installation and adjustment | Hardware clauses + commissioning or acceptance records | Do the required adjustments and functional checks cover the opening configuration shown? Identify who coordinates unresolved interface checks. |
Worked example: a powered lock without an interface
Illustrative example: a hardware set includes a powered device, but the electrical package contains no corresponding power or control reference. The access-control drawing marks the door as controlled without describing the connection. Each document names part of the system while leaving the interface unassigned.
Record the door number, hardware-set entry, and access-control symbol together. Ask the architectural, electrical, and security reviewers to identify the power source, pathway, and intended operating sequence. Recheck the leaf and frame preparation after their response. For a separate published example of why the whole opening matters, see the door-rating discrepancy below.
See the published door-rating finding. The illustrative scenario above is separate from that published finding.
Avoid a false conflict
A hardware function name does not establish the complete egress, accessibility, or security behavior of an opening. Do not fill a missing sequence with a default from another door. Confirm the actual assembly, applicable design requirements, and project-specific decision.
When requirements disagree, follow the project’s document-control and clarification process. Do not assume that drawings always override specifications, or the reverse. Identify the exact sources and request an authorized decision.
Close the issue across the affected documents
Record the location or tag, drawing and specification references, issue dates, observed difference, and the decision needed. Assign an owner and keep the item open until the response identifies the governing requirement. Check the revised drawings and specification references together; a response email alone may leave the issued package inconsistent.
For the overall process, use the guide to drawing and specification conflicts. Mark an inapplicable checklist row with a reason, and distinguish a verified correction from a question that still needs design information.
Where Groundbook fits
Groundbook’s drawing and specification review helps investigate potential disagreements in the documents you supply. Include the relevant specification sections and drawing references, then verify the cited evidence with the responsible reviewers before acting on a finding.