Inventory the systems and their responsible designers, then trace each device to a pathway, a head-end room, and a power source on the electrical documents. Check every controlled opening against the door hardware schedule and the fire alarm matrix. Record disagreements with both references. System design and life-safety determinations stay with the responsible professionals.
Assemble a reviewable package
Collect the technology and security device plans, riser diagrams, cabling schedules, and the technology room layout. Add the electrical panel schedules and riser, the door hardware schedule, the fire alarm input-output matrix, the reflected ceiling plan, and the room-use plan.
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 inventory | Technology drawings, specification sections, system list | Is every low-voltage system named, with its scope and responsible designer identified? |
| Device identity | Device plan, device schedule, symbol legend | Does each device symbol resolve to one scheduled type, location, and mounting height? |
| Pathway continuity | Pathway plan, riser diagram, architectural reflected ceiling | Can each pathway be followed from the device to its head-end without an undocumented gap? |
| Head-end rooms | Technology room plan, electrical and mechanical drawings | Are rack layout, power, cooling, and grounding described consistently across disciplines? |
| Power and backup | Riser diagram, panel schedules, UPS description | Does each system have an identified power source and stated backup provision on the electrical documents? |
| Structured cabling | Cabling schedule, specification, distance limits | Are cable types, counts, and lengths described, with runs exceeding stated limits identified? |
| Access control interfaces | Door hardware schedule, access control plan, architectural details | Does every controlled opening appear in both the hardware schedule and the security documents with the same function? |
| Life-safety interlocks | Access control notes, fire alarm matrix, egress plan | Is the release-on-alarm behaviour of each locked opening described the same way in both sets of drawings? |
| Camera coverage | Camera plan, field-of-view notes, room-use plan | Is the intended coverage described per area, with areas deliberately uncovered identified? |
| Audio and visual | AV plan, room elevations, ceiling plan | Do display, speaker, and control locations agree between the AV, architectural, and ceiling documents? |
| Owner-furnished scope | Responsibility matrix, specification, contract notes | Which devices are owner-furnished, who installs them, and where is that recorded? |
| Revision closure | Response, revised device plan and riser, interfacing disciplines | Does the accepted change reach the plan, the riser, the hardware schedule, and the fire alarm matrix? |
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 card-controlled door. Find it on the security plan, then in the door hardware schedule, and compare the described function: which side reads, which way it fails, and what happens on alarm. Then find the same opening in the fire alarm matrix. A locked egress door whose release behaviour is described differently in three documents is a life-safety question, and it is usually only visible when all three are open together.
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.