Check the opening mark and location first, then reconcile size definitions, operation, leaf and frame types, protection requirements, hardware, electrical interfaces, and floor transitions. Preserve the source references and unresolved decisions for each opening or clearly defined repeated condition.
Collect the opening’s full description
Open the current floor plan, door and frame schedules, type elevations, hardware information, wall and threshold details, and relevant specifications. Add access-control or electrical documents for powered and monitored functions. Record which sources were available and which remain pending.
Check the issue basis before comparing entries. A schedule can be revised while its referenced hardware information still belongs to an earlier package. Ask the document owner to confirm the intended combination rather than assuming the newest file replaces every earlier source.
The Steel Door Institute’s recommended details include guidance on door, frame, and hardware schedules for steel openings. Use the applicable project specifications and product information for the assembly being reviewed. This worksheet is an original coordination aid and is not a product schedule or hardware specification.
Twelve questions for each opening condition
Begin with one opening. For repeated conditions, confirm that the wall, operation, hardware, protection, and floor interfaces are actually the same before grouping the review. Keep exceptions visible; a shared door type does not necessarily mean a shared complete assembly.
| Review area | Open these sources together | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Opening mark | Plan tag and schedule entry | Does the opening appear in both places, without unexplained duplicates or orphan rows? |
| Location | Room numbers and opening description | Does the row identify the correct pair of spaces and the actual wall condition? |
| Size meaning | Scheduled size, frame detail, rough-opening information | Are leaf, frame, rough-opening, and clear-opening dimensions kept distinct? |
| Operation | Plan swing, door elevation, hardware set | Do the handing, leaf arrangement, and operating description agree? |
| Leaf type | Door type legend, schedule, specification | Do the material, construction, and type reference describe one intended product condition? |
| Frame interface | Frame type, wall assembly, jamb detail | Does the frame condition account for the wall it is installed in? |
| Protection requirement | Life-safety plan, wall designation, door row | Is the specified opening protection consistent with the surrounding assembly and project criteria? |
| Vision or louver | Door elevation, schedule remarks, relevant performance data | Are glazing and ventilation features included consistently in the assembly description? |
| Hardware group | Hardware set reference, opening operation, door/frame preparation | Can the hardware reference be followed, and does it suit the specified operation? |
| Electrified functions | Hardware function, access-control diagram, electrical notes | Are power, signal, interface, and responsibility boundaries explicitly coordinated? |
| Threshold and finish | Floor transition, threshold detail, finish schedule | Do the floor build-up and threshold condition agree at both sides of the opening? |
| Revision effects | Changed opening, hardware group, specifications, dependent details | Have all documents affected by the decision been reviewed in the governing issue? |
The CSV includes review and closure fields rather than invented product values. Duplicate the prompts for the openings you select and add the actual source references. Mark an item not applicable only after recording why it does not apply to that condition.
Keep size and operation questions precise
“Door width does not match” is incomplete unless the reviewer identifies which width each source describes. Leaf size, frame dimensions, rough opening, and clear opening are related but distinct. Read the schedule heading, type detail, and surrounding notes before flagging a conflict.
Use the same care with operation. Identify the viewpoint or convention used for handing, the active and inactive leaves where relevant, and the intended function. Trace that description into the plan swing and hardware information. A generic type elevation may not capture every opening’s operational requirements.
When the documents do disagree, list the values with their labels and sources. Ask for the intended condition and the documents that must be revised. Do not choose a value because it seems more common or easier to procure.
Investigate ratings in their assembly context
A scheduled protection value needs context from the surrounding assembly, opening location, project criteria, and applicable requirements. A reviewer should establish that context before proposing a correction. Similar-looking doors can be subject to different conditions.
In the published hotel review, a potential finding connected an entry door scheduled as unrated with the protected-separation context shown elsewhere. The sample report presents the sources and the questions needed to investigate the issue, including the applicable requirements and exceptions.
The lesson is a review method: connect the schedule to the actual opening and surrounding design. The example is not a universal rating rule for hotel doors, and the published finding does not document a final approval or construction outcome.
Follow hardware and electrical dependencies
For an opening with access control, write down the intended behavior and follow the sources that describe it. The hardware information, security diagram, power notes, and any relevant system interfaces need to tell a consistent story. If a required operating condition is not stated, ask the responsible designers to define it.
Separate functional questions from supply and installation questions. A drawing may identify a component without stating who furnishes its power connection, prepares the frame, or coordinates the interface. Record the boundary and the responsible parties instead of filling in the scope from habit.
Review dependent details after a hardware or door-type change. A revised function may affect preparation, wiring, frame information, or adjacent finishes. The point of the backcheck is to confirm that the agreed decision is expressed wherever the team needs to use it.
Record the decision and verify the revised opening
A useful review row contains the opening mark, the source issue, the precise question, the responsible reviewer, and the response reference. Add the documents affected by the response and the evidence used for closure. “Schedule updated” alone does not establish that the plan, hardware, and detail references agree.
Use architectural drawing review to check the opening’s wider room and wall context. Groundbook’s drawing and specification review can surface potential inconsistencies across supplied documents; qualified reviewers verify the requirement and decide the correction.
If information is missing at the review milestone, keep the row open with an owner and next decision date. That provides a usable handoff without presenting an incomplete assembly as ready for procurement.