Read the system basis and the input-output matrix first, then check every interface (elevator, suppression, mechanical, door hardware) against the other discipline’s documents. Record disagreements with both references. Design, coverage adequacy, and compliance determinations stay with the fire protection engineer and the authority having jurisdiction.
Assemble a reviewable package
Collect the fire alarm device plans, riser diagram, device schedule, and input-output matrix, plus the life-safety plan, the sprinkler drawings, the elevator documents, the door hardware schedule, the mechanical controls sequence, and the electrical panel schedules.
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 basis | Fire alarm general notes, specification, project criteria | Is the system type, governing edition, and authority stated, and does it match the life-safety narrative? |
| Device identity | Device plan, device schedule, symbol legend | Does each device symbol resolve to one scheduled device type, address, and location? |
| Coverage narrative | Device plan, room-use plan, occupancy description | Is the intended coverage described per space type, with spaces deliberately excluded identified as such? |
| Notification | Device plan, candela schedule, room finishes | Are notification appliance ratings scheduled per space, with the design basis cited rather than assumed? |
| Interface matrix | Input-output matrix, mechanical, elevator, and door hardware documents | Does every interlock have an identified initiating device, an action, and a receiving system on both sets of drawings? |
| Power and circuits | Riser diagram, panel schedules, electrical drawings | Do the fire alarm circuits and their sources appear on both the fire alarm and the electrical documents? |
| Survivability and pathways | Riser diagram, pathway notes, rated construction plan | Are pathway protection requirements stated and located against the rated construction shown? |
| Elevator interface | Elevator drawings, recall notes, machine room plan | Are recall, power shunt, and machine-room detection described consistently on both sets of drawings? |
| Suppression interface | Sprinkler drawings, flow and tamper devices, riser detail | Does every monitored suppression device appear on both the sprinkler and the fire alarm documents? |
| Sequence of operation | Sequence narrative, matrix, mechanical controls | Is a written sequence provided, and does it agree with the matrix and the mechanical controls documents? |
| Deferred submittal | General notes, permit conditions, responsible designer | Is the deferred scope identified, with the party who prepares and submits it named? |
| Revision closure | Response, revised device plan and matrix, interfacing disciplines | Does the accepted change reach the plan, the matrix, the riser, and every interfacing discipline? |
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 one interlock, such as elevator recall. Find the initiating detectors on the fire alarm plan, find the same detectors on the elevator documents, read the matrix row that connects them, and read the written sequence of operation. Then check that the shunt trip and its breaker appear on the electrical drawings. If those four sources describe the interlock differently, that is the finding, and it is much cheaper now than at inspection.
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.