Map every reviewed window or glazed opening to its glass type and applicable specification selection. Compare the glass build-up, performance-value basis, special design requirements, and framing interfaces for the same location and configuration.
Assemble the review package
Assemble window schedules, elevations, glazed-opening details, glass-type legends, and the issued glazing specification. Include the relevant energy-design inputs and any project-specific protective glazing information. Distinguish the glass itself from the complete window or curtain-wall assembly when reading performance requirements.
WBDG publishes UFGS 08 81 00: Glazing as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 16, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Tag assignment | Elevation window mark + glass-type schedule | Can each reviewed opening be connected to a defined glazing type? Record locations that refer only to a frame designation. |
| Glass build-up | Glass legend + selected product clauses | Do layer descriptions, thicknesses, and treatment references identify the same glass configuration? Flag unresolved alternatives. |
| Performance basis | Window schedule + energy and specification values | Are thermal and solar values stated for the same scope, units, and configuration? Distinguish glass-only values from whole-product requirements. |
| Special requirements | Opening location + safety or protective design references | Are project-specific special glazing requirements assigned to the relevant openings? Ask the designer to resolve missing applicability information. |
| Appearance | Elevation intent + glass and coating selection | Are tint, coating, frit, opacity, or other appearance selections coordinated by location rather than left as conflicting general notes? |
| Frame interface | Glazing pocket details + glass and accessory information | Does the documented glass configuration match the framing detail being reviewed? Request missing interface information without inventing clearances. |
| Adjacent materials | Perimeter details + sealant and accessory references | Is there a documented basis for the glass, sealant, gasket, and adjacent material combination? Record compatibility questions. |
| Submittal scope | Specified samples and data + scheduled configurations | Do the requested submissions represent the distinct glass types and configurations actually shown? Identify an unrepresented special condition. |
Worked example: one value, two different scopes
Illustrative example: the window schedule lists a thermal value for a complete window, while product information supplied for review gives a center-of-glass value. Both appear beside the same glass tag. A reviewer could incorrectly treat the smaller number as evidence that the scheduled requirement is satisfied.
Record the stated scope of each value and request comparable whole-product information for the scheduled configuration. If the proposed glass build-up changes, recheck the frame and perimeter details as well. Keep the item open until the comparison uses the same basis; a matching tag alone does not establish matching performance.
Avoid a false conflict
Similar appearance does not make glazing types interchangeable. Avoid treating words such as safety, fire-protective, fire-resistant, or security as a single category. Identify the exact project requirement and ask qualified reviewers to confirm the proposed assembly against it.
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.