Locate each shaft, opening, sleeve, or recess on the relevant architectural, structural, and MEP documents, then compare its level, dimensions, purpose, and references. Ask the responsible designers to resolve missing interfaces before the team relies on the opening for fabrication or installation.
Define the opening and the receiving assembly
Start with a bounded area: one riser, a congested floor zone, or a group of equipment penetrations. Gather the relevant plans, sections, opening schedules, structural details, and project-specific assembly information. Keep a requested opening separate from a documented, reviewed opening.
RAIC’s construction documents guidance describes coordination between drawings and specifications as a way to reduce gaps and overlaps. This checklist applies that general principle to interfaces; it does not supply structural design or fire-resistance acceptance criteria.
Eight shaft and opening checks
- Location. Record grids, offsets, level, and the service or equipment using the opening. Compare the same location rather than relying on similar room names.
- Opening type. Distinguish a full penetration, recess, sleeve, pit, and reserved zone. Identify how the drawings describe the intended condition.
- Dimension basis. Determine whether a dimension describes the clear opening, rough opening, sleeve, or service. Ask for missing allowances instead of assuming that nominal service size equals opening size.
- Receiving structure. Locate the opening in the slab, wall, beam zone, or foundation information. Follow separate schedules and details before reporting an omission.
- Vertical continuity. Trace shafts and risers between levels. Record changes in footprint, offset, or elevation and locate the section explaining the transition.
- Assembly interface. Identify the wall or floor assembly and the referenced treatment at the penetration. Have qualified reviewers confirm applicable protection requirements and the project-specific detail.
- Support and access. Locate service supports and required access information. Distinguish support attached to the receiving structure from an opening that merely allows passage.
- Revision closure. Compare the revised service route with the updated opening and structural references. Keep superseded requests visible in the log so they are not mistaken for current instructions.
Published example: a sump missing from structural information
In the published missing-opening finding, a sump shown in the mechanical/plumbing design was not represented in the corresponding structural slab and footing area. The concern was the unresolved interface, not a conclusion that the structure could simply be cut.
Locate the sump in both disciplines, search for a separate opening schedule or delegated-design note, and ask the designers to establish the intended arrangement. Record the revised structural and plumbing references together. A verbal agreement on the sump position does not explain its relationship to the slab or footing in the issued documents.
Record a question that can be closed
For each issue, record the location or tag, both source references and revisions, the conflicting values or missing information, the responsible reviewer, and the decision needed. After a response, identify the revised sheets and check dependent details before marking the item resolved. A response without coordinated drawing changes may leave the original ambiguity in the issued set.
Use the editable document review log to keep that evidence together. Mark a check as not applicable with a reason, rather than leaving a blank that could mean it was missed.
Where Groundbook fits
Use Groundbook’s cross-discipline review to investigate potential disagreements across the supplied documents. Include the relevant plans, schedules, details, and specifications. Review the cited evidence with the responsible designers before recording a correction or closing an item.