A drawing register lists controlled drawing records and their issue information. Use it to assemble an explicit review baseline, preserve superseded records, and expose missing or ambiguous sheets. This CSV is a lightweight review-package register that you maintain in your own spreadsheet.
Use a register to establish the review baseline
A sheet index tells you what the drawing set lists. A review register records the documents you actually received and the issue decisions behind the package you are about to check. Comparing the two can reveal a missing sheet, a duplicate identifier, or an unexplained revision.
For this template, keep one row for each sheet revision in each review package. If the same sheet is reissued, retain its previous row and add the new record. If you reuse a sheet in another milestone, identify the new review package so the record does not silently change the earlier baseline.
The register does not decide contractual precedence or whether a drawing is authorized for construction. Obtain those decisions from the responsible document owner and applicable project process. A recent download timestamp is not an issue instruction.
What the template records
The blank CSV opens in common spreadsheet tools, including Excel and Google Sheets. It has 14 columns and ten empty rows to get started; add as many rows as the package needs. It contains no customer examples, macros, formulas, or automatic revision decisions.
| Field | What to enter |
|---|---|
| Review package | The issue or milestone being assembled for this review. |
| Discipline | The source discipline or consultant package. |
| Sheet ID | The sheet identifier printed on the drawing. Preserve meaningful prefixes. |
| Sheet title | The title as supplied, so duplicate numbers can be investigated. |
| File / page reference | The controlled file location and PDF page needed to open the sheet. |
| Revision label | The revision stated on the sheet; leave unknown if not established. |
| Issue date | The date stated for the drawing issue, separate from the download date. |
| Issue purpose | The stated purpose, such as coordination, permit, or construction. |
| Transmittal / instruction | The record that explains the issue and any replacement instructions. |
| Included in review | Yes, no, or pending, with the reason recorded in the notes. |
| Baseline decision | Confirmed, superseded, or unresolved, as determined by the document owner. |
| Replaces / depends on | The prior sheet or related documents that need to be checked. |
| Decision owner / date | The responsible role and date of the baseline decision. |
| Notes / missing references | Anything preventing a complete, unambiguous review package. |
Use controlled file references that your team can access. If the register will be shared beyond the project team, check that its links and notes do not expose private document locations or personal information. The public template itself contains only field headings and blank records.
Assemble a package in five passes
- List what arrived. Enter the sheets and their printed identifiers before deciding whether the package is complete. A single PDF can contain multiple sheets with different revision histories.
- Compare against the expected set. Check the index, transmittal, scope, and referenced sheets. Record an expected but missing drawing as a gap rather than quietly excluding it.
- Resolve competing records. If two files claim to be the same sheet and revision, ask which one governs. File size or naming order does not answer that question.
- Mark the inclusion decision. State what belongs in the review and why anything is excluded. Preserve the instruction or response that established the baseline.
- Save the issued register. Keep a dated snapshot with the review record, then maintain later changes as a new package or clearly recorded update.
Assign a document owner for unresolved decisions. A reviewer should be able to reproduce the package from the register without asking the original uploader to remember what they selected.
Example: a partial reissue changes one sheet
Consider an illustrative package containing an architectural floor plan, a door schedule, and structural plans. A later transmittal supplies a revised floor plan only. The earlier schedule and structural sheets may still be part of the governing package if the issue instructions establish that relationship.
Add the revised plan as a new row, identify the record it replaces, and retain the earlier plan as superseded. Keep the unchanged references in the current package only after confirming their intended status. Record any uncertainty instead of changing all dates to make the rows look uniform.
Next, review the changed plan’s dependencies. If an opening moved, the door schedule or receiving structural information may need attention even though those sheets were not reissued. The register establishes the source baseline; the revision review investigates whether the design remains coordinated.
Investigate four common exceptions
The title block has no clear revision: record the missing information and request confirmation. Do not invent a revision label to complete the row. The index lists a sheet you did not receive: distinguish an intentional exclusion from an incomplete delivery before the review starts.
A detail points outside the package: record the missing reference and the review question that depends on it. Two schedules disagree: establish the governing sources, then check whether both contain requirements that need reconciliation. Choosing the newer-looking file can hide a real coordination question.
The published governing-revision finding illustrates the last problem: conflicting structural schedules needed a clear controlling requirement and a review of downstream references. A register helps preserve that decision once the responsible team makes it.
Keep document control separate from the findings log
The register answers which sources were reviewed. A findings log records the questions found in those sources, the responses, and closure evidence. Link the two through the package and sheet references rather than putting every technical comment into the register’s notes column.
Use the document review process guide and its separate resolution log to manage those questions. Before an AI review, follow the PDF preparation guide to check readability and supply relevant references.
Groundbook reviews the project documents you provide. This downloadable register is maintained by your team; it is not an automatic register-generation feature or an integration that controls your source files.