Trace each panel elevation into the panel system, attachment, and finish specification, and compare panel type, attachment method, joint or reveal design, and air and water barrier continuity before treating a panel elevation as fully detailed.
Assemble the review package
Gather exterior elevations, wall sections and panel details, substrate or framing information, air- and water-barrier drawings, and the issued metal wall panel specification. Include structural wind-load criteria and any referenced testing requirements. Distinguish the panel system from the barrier behind it before comparing continuity requirements.
WBDG publishes UFGS 07 42 13: Metal Wall Panels 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Panel system assignment | Elevation panel tag + panel-type schedule or specification | Does every panel area resolve to a defined system, such as flush, reveal, or insulated metal panel? |
| Material and finish | Elevation finish callout + material and finish clauses | Do gauge, alloy, and finish, including coating type and color, match between the elevation and specification? |
| Attachment method | Wall section + attachment and clip clauses | Is the attachment system, such as concealed clip or exposed fastener, identifiable and consistent with the substrate shown? |
| Joint and reveal design | Detail joint dimension + joint-design clauses | Do reveal width, sealant joint, or open-joint rainscreen requirements match between the detail and specification? |
| Air and water barrier interface | Wall assembly layer sequence + barrier continuity clauses | Can the air and water barrier be traced continuously behind the panel system, including at panel-to-window and panel-to-roof transitions? |
| Structural attachment and wind load | Attachment detail + specified wind-load or testing criteria | Does the documented basis for panel and clip capacity match the actual wall zone, such as field, corner, or parapet? |
| Expansion and movement | Elevation joint layout + movement-joint clauses | Are panel expansion joints located and detailed consistently with the specified panel run length? |
| Submittal and mockup scope | Specified samples or mockup + scheduled panel types | Do requested submittals represent every distinct panel type, finish, and joint condition shown? |
Worked example: a rainscreen joint without a barrier note
Illustrative example: an elevation shows an open-joint rainscreen metal panel system with a reveal at each panel edge, but the wall section behind it does not identify a continuous water-resistive barrier at that reveal. The specification requires a drained and vented cavity behind the panels.
Trace the panel system into the wall section, mark where the water-resistive barrier is shown or missing behind the open joint, and ask the envelope designer to confirm the drainage and venting path. Recheck the panel-to-window and panel-to-roof transitions after the barrier detail is corrected, since an open-joint system depends on that barrier working at every edge.
Avoid a false conflict
An open-joint rainscreen system depends on a continuous drainage plane behind the panels, so a barrier shown at one wall section does not confirm it continues at every panel-to-window or panel-to-roof transition. Confirm the actual assembly at each transition before treating a typical section as complete.
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.