Follow water from every high point to a drain and an overflow, then trace the waterproofing layer through each edge, penetration, and transition until it terminates or hands off to another assembly. Record any break with both references. Assembly selection and warranty decisions stay with the design team and the manufacturer.
Assemble a reviewable package
Assemble the roof plan, tapered insulation layout, roof details, drain and overflow schedules, and the wall sections that meet the roof. Add the plumbing drawings for drainage, the mechanical and electrical plans for anything sitting on the roof, and the structural drawings for the deck and supports.
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 identity | Roof plan, assembly schedule, specification | Does each roof area resolve to one assembly with the same membrane, insulation, and deck description in every source? |
| Slope and drainage | Roof plan, tapered insulation layout, drain schedule | Can water be followed from every high point to a drain or overflow, with slopes stated rather than implied? |
| Overflow provision | Roof plan, overflow details, plumbing drawings | Is secondary drainage described, located on both the architectural and plumbing documents, and detailed? |
| Perimeter and edge | Edge details, parapet sections, wind uplift notes | Is each edge condition detailed, and is the attachment basis identified with the party responsible for it? |
| Penetration details | Roof plan, penetration schedule, MEP equipment plan | Does every penetration on the mechanical and electrical plans appear on the roof plan with a flashing detail? |
| Transitions | Sections at level changes, wall-roof junctions, expansion joints | Is the waterproofing layer continuous through each transition, or is the break identified for resolution? |
| Below-grade waterproofing | Foundation sections, waterproofing details, drainage layer | Can the below-grade barrier be traced continuously, including at footings, steps, and penetrations? |
| Deck and substrate | Structural drawings, deck notes, attachment details | Does the assumed substrate in the roofing details match what the structural documents actually provide? |
| Equipment support | Curb and rail details, structural framing, equipment schedule | Is each supported item shown on the roof with a curb or rail detail and a structural support? |
| Warranty scope | Specification, notes, submittal requirements | Which components are covered by the stated warranty and which are excluded, and who assembles the documentation? |
| Sequencing interfaces | Phasing notes, temporary protection, adjacent trades | Where roofing is installed in phases, is the temporary protection and tie-in described? |
| Revision closure | Response, revised roof plan and details, dependent disciplines | Does the accepted change reach the roof plan, the details, and the mechanical and plumbing sheets affected by it? |
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
Pick one roof drain. Read the slopes arriving at it, confirm an overflow serves the same low area, then find both on the plumbing drawings with their piping. Next, take one mechanical unit on the roof plan and check it has a curb detail, a structural support, and a flashing detail for every penetration it needs. The mismatch between what the mechanical plan puts on the roof and what the roof plan shows is the most common finding in this package.
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.