Trace each electronic security device from the plan into its intrusion detection, access control, or video surveillance subsystem, then compare credentialing basis, programming logic, and door-hardware interface for the same opening before treating a device plan as coordinated.
Assemble the review package
Gather the security device plan, the door hardware schedule, the access-control programming narrative (anti-passback, two-person rule, guard tour, door interlocking), the camera coverage or lighting plan, and the issued electronic security systems specification. This guide covers intrusion detection, access control, video surveillance, and the security command center as a single unified system; review one controlled opening or protected boundary completely before assuming a similar device elsewhere shares the same subsystem and programming.
WBDG publishes UFGS 28 10 05: Electronic Security Systems (ESS) as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 24, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Subsystem scope assignment | Device symbol on the security plan + specified intrusion detection, access control, or video surveillance subsystem | Does each device symbol resolve to a defined subsystem and component type in the specification, rather than a generic security note? |
| Sensor type and UL listing | Sensor location and protected boundary + specified sensor type and referenced UL standard | Does the specified interior or exterior sensor type (high security switch, glass break, fence-mounted, buried, microwave) match the referenced UL listing and the boundary shown on the site or floor plan? |
| Credential and PIV compliance | Card reader type (contact or contactless) + specified personal-identity-verification credential requirement | Where the project requires PIV-compliant credentials, does the specified reader and credential type support that requirement at the scheduled openings? |
| Programming logic assignment | Operational narrative for the area (anti-passback, two-person rule, guard tour, door interlocking) + specified access-control programming feature | Does the documented operational intent for each controlled area match a programming feature the specification actually supports, rather than an assumed default behavior? |
| Camera performance and analytics basis | Camera location and lighting condition + specified resolution, low-light sensitivity, and video-analytics feature | Does the specified camera performance and any video-analytics function (intruder identification, subject tracking) match the coverage intent and lighting condition at that location? |
| Door hardware interface | Door hardware schedule locking device + specified electric strike, mortise lock, or electromagnetic lock | Does the door hardware schedule’s locking device and fail-safe or fail-secure behavior match what the security specification and door-interlocking programming assume for that opening? |
| Communications and cabling basis | Head-end wiring diagram + specified hardwire, radio-frequency, or local-area-network cabling requirement | Does the documented cabling path from each device to the security command center match the specified communications method, including any structured-cabling reference? |
| Backup power and surge protection | Device count and standby-duration basis + specified uninterruptible power supply and surge-protection requirement | Does the documented device count and standby-duration assumption match what the specified battery-capacity calculation and surge-protection scope require? |
Worked example: an entry booth without its door-interlocking assignment
Illustrative example: a personnel entry booth is shown on the security plan with a camera, a weight-check monitor, and a double-occupancy sensor consistent with the specification’s entry-booth equipment list. The door hardware schedule lists locking devices for both booth doors but does not identify a door-interlocking function, even though the specification’s access-control programming article lists door interlocking as a feature for preventing both leaves from being open at once.
Confirm the intended interlocking behavior for the booth with the security designer, add the door-interlocking programming reference to the access-control documentation, and recheck the booth’s door hardware and controller wiring for the added interlock signal before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A device list that matches an equipment article, such as an entry booth’s camera and weight-check monitor, does not by itself confirm that the programming logic tying those devices together, such as door interlocking, was carried into the door hardware and controller documentation.
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.