Trace each finish-schedule tag into the specified flooring product, substrate preparation and moisture-testing requirements, transitions, and adhesive compatibility, then resolve mismatches by room before installation begins.
Assemble the review package
Gather the room finish schedule, flooring and transition plans, substrate and moisture-testing requirements, and the issued resilient flooring specification. Include slab age and any topping or existing-floor information for renovation areas. Start with one room or corridor run rather than assuming every area sharing a finish tag shares the same substrate history.
WBDG publishes UFGS 09 65 00: Resilient Flooring 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Finish tag and product | Room finish schedule + flooring product clauses | Does each tagged area point to an identifiable flooring type, pattern, and color? Record tags left undefined. |
| Substrate and moisture | Slab or topping notes + preparation and moisture-testing clauses | Is the required test method, acceptance threshold, and testing party identified for the actual substrate, including its age? |
| Transitions | Floor plan transition marks + transition and reducer requirements | Can each change of flooring type or elevation be traced to a detail and material? Flag transitions shown only as a line. |
| Adhesive compatibility | Product data + adhesive and underlayment clauses | Is there a documented compatibility basis for the substrate, adhesive, and flooring, especially over radiant heat or below grade? |
| Pattern and direction | Finish plan pattern notes + installation clauses | Do direction, pattern, and seam layout instructions agree between the drawing and the specification? |
| Base and accessories | Wall base schedule + base and accessory clauses | Are base, edge, and transition accessories assigned to the same locations as the scheduled field material? |
| Special performance | Room use notes + static-control or slip-resistance clauses | Are rooms with special performance needs, such as electronics or wet areas, tied to the correct flooring selection? |
| Submittal scope | Specified samples + scheduled flooring types | Do the requested samples represent every distinct flooring type, pattern, and color actually shown on the finish plan? |
Worked example: a moisture test left unassigned
Illustrative example: a finish schedule shows resilient flooring in a ground-floor corridor over a new slab. The specification lists an in-situ relative-humidity test method and acceptance threshold, but neither document says who performs the test or when it happens relative to slab curing.
Record the room, slab type, and specified test method together, and ask the general contractor and flooring installer to confirm testing responsibility and timing before ordering material. Check adjacent rooms with different substrate ages so a passed result in one area is not assumed to apply to a slab that has not cured as long.
Avoid a false conflict
A single flooring product name on a legend does not guarantee every scheduled room shares the same substrate condition. Do not assume a moisture test result in one area applies to another with a different slab age or history. Confirm the testing location and date against the room actually being reviewed.
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.