Compare the hoistway plan and section against the equipment described, then follow structural supports, power, and the fire alarm interface into each discipline that provides them. Record disagreements with both references. Equipment selection and code compliance remain with the design team, the supplier, and the authority having jurisdiction.
Assemble a reviewable package
Gather the architectural hoistway plans and sections, the elevator specification and equipment schedule, the structural drawings at the shaft, the electrical riser and panel schedules, the fire alarm matrix, and the machine room mechanical drawings.
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 description | Elevator specification, equipment schedule, drawings | Do the type, capacity, speed, and travel described agree across the specification, schedule, and drawings? |
| Hoistway geometry | Architectural plans, sections, supplier requirements | Do the hoistway plan and section dimensions match the equipment the documents describe? |
| Pit and overhead | Section, pit detail, structural drawings | Are pit depth and overhead clearance stated and reconciled with the structure shown? |
| Structural support | Guide rail brackets, machine beam, structural drawings | Is each supporting element shown on the structural drawings with the loads it was given? |
| Machine room | Machine room plan, mechanical and electrical drawings | Are the room, its ventilation, and its power described consistently across the disciplines that serve it? |
| Power and disconnects | Riser diagram, panel schedules, elevator notes | Do the feeder, disconnect, and shunt trip appear on both the electrical and the elevator documents? |
| Fire alarm interface | Recall notes, fire alarm matrix, lobby detection | Are recall levels, detector locations, and the resulting operation described the same way in both sets? |
| Accessibility features | Car plan, fixture schedule, accessibility criteria | Are car dimensions, fixture heights, and signage described with the applicable criteria cited? |
| Finishes and interfaces | Car finish schedule, lobby architectural details | Do entrance frames, sills, and lobby finishes resolve at the actual floor and wall conditions? |
| Venting and smoke | Hoistway venting notes, rated construction, mechanical drawings | Is the venting or pressurization approach stated, located, and consistent with the rated construction shown? |
| Delegated scope | Specification, supplier drawing list, responsible parties | Which drawings are supplier-prepared, when are they due, and who reviews them? |
| Revision closure | Response, revised hoistway and interfaces, dependent disciplines | Does the accepted change reach the architectural, structural, electrical, and fire alarm documents that depend on it? |
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 the pit. Read its depth on the architectural section, then check the structural drawings for the slab and any sump. Read the overhead clearance at the top of the same section against the equipment described. Then follow the feeder from the panel schedule to the disconnect, and check the shunt trip appears in the fire alarm matrix with the detector that triggers it. Pit, overhead, power, and recall are where the coordination usually breaks.
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.