Trace each lighting zone from the plan and fixture schedule into the control devices, sequence, and specification. Compare normal operation, interfaces, and testing references for that zone without assuming that a sensor symbol explains the full control behavior.
Assemble the review package
Collect lighting plans, luminaire schedules, control-zone diagrams, device legends, operating sequences, and the issued lighting specification. Include power and emergency-lighting information and the architectural room layout. Review a representative room type, then inspect exceptions such as partitions, special-use spaces, or different fixture configurations.
WBDG publishes UFGS 26 51 00: Interior Lighting 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Room and zone boundaries | Architectural plan + lighting control zones | Do zone boundaries follow the current room layout and intended use? Record partitions that changed after control zones were assigned. |
| Fixture assignment | Luminaire tags + zone and control references | Can each fixture group be connected to an identified control arrangement? Keep a circuit identifier distinct from a control-zone identifier. |
| Control compatibility | Luminaire data + specified control method | Does the package establish a compatible basis for the selected fixture and control arrangement? Refer missing interface information to the electrical designer. |
| Sensors and coverage | Device locations + sensor information | Is there enough documented information to review the intended coverage for this room configuration? A symbol location alone may not explain it. |
| Sequence | Room control narrative + specification | Do the documents agree on the described operation and transitions? Flag unresolved differences in manual action, automatic behavior, or scheduling. |
| Daylight and partitions | Zone diagram + glazing and partition layout | Are daylight-related and partition-dependent behaviors tied to the current room configuration? Record changes that require the control intent to be revisited. |
| Special power conditions | Power and emergency references + control details | Are the control interfaces for the designated special conditions documented and assigned for qualified review? Do not infer behavior from a fixture label. |
| Testing and handover | Sequence + testing and user-information clauses | Can the requested functional checks demonstrate the stated zone behavior, and do the handover references match the installed control scope? |
Worked example: a partition divides a control zone
Illustrative example: an architectural revision splits an open meeting space into two enclosed rooms. The lighting plan retains one control zone and a sensor shown in only one room, while the specification describes room-based operation. The fixture count may still look correct even though the control intent no longer matches the layout.
Pair the revised room plan with the zone diagram and relevant sequence. Ask the electrical designer to confirm the intended operation for both rooms and coordinate devices, fixture assignments, and test references. Review any associated ceiling changes with the reflected ceiling plan checklist before closing the issue.
Avoid a false conflict
Power circuits and control zones are different relationships; a shared circuit does not necessarily mean shared control. Likewise, the presence of a sensor symbol does not establish that its type, coverage, and operating sequence match the current room configuration.
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.