Trace each wood door from its schedule entry into the specified core type, veneer or finish grade, louver or glazing cutout, and fire-label requirement, then confirm hardware preparation and frame compatibility for the same opening.
Assemble the review package
Gather the door and frame schedule, floor plans, door details showing louvers or glazing, the life-safety plan for rated openings, and the issued wood doors specification. Include the hardware sets referenced for each opening. This guide is scoped to wood door leaves; review Section 08 11 13 Steel Doors and Frames or the frame requirements in the finish-carpentry section separately when the frame material differs from the leaf.
WBDG publishes UFGS 08 14 00: Wood Doors as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 27, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Door identity | Plan door number + door schedule | Does each numbered wood door resolve to a schedule entry describing its size, construction type, and finish? Record renumbered or duplicated entries. |
| Core and construction type | Schedule construction column + core and stile/rail clauses | Does the specified core (particleboard, agrifiber, stile-and-rail, or other) match the acoustic, security, or fire performance the opening needs? |
| Veneer or finish grade | Schedule finish notes + veneer and finish clauses | Do the specified veneer species, cut, and match, or the factory or plastic-laminate finish, agree between the schedule and the specification for the same door? |
| Fire label and rating | Life-safety plan + fire-door labeling clauses | Does the door’s labeled rating match the opening’s life-safety requirement, and is the same rating referenced consistently between the plan and schedule? |
| Louvers and glazing | Door detail + louver and glazing cutout clauses | Are louver or vision-lite cutouts shown at the correct location and size, and do they respect the fire-rated door’s permitted opening limits where applicable? |
| Hardware preparation | Hardware set + door preparation clauses | Is the door leaf prepared for the scheduled hardware set, with any electrified or automatic-operator provisions identified rather than assumed? |
| Frame and transom compatibility | Frame detail + door and frame coordination clauses | Does the specified wood door leaf match the frame material and profile shown, including any transom or sidelite condition at the same opening? |
| Environmental exposure | Opening location + exterior-use or moisture-resistance clauses | Where a wood door faces exterior exposure or a wet area, does the documented construction address that condition rather than defaulting to an interior-grade assembly? |
Worked example: a rated opening without its labeled core
Illustrative example: a door schedule lists a wood door with a stain finish for a stair enclosure, and the life-safety plan marks that opening as a rated egress door. The specification identifies a composite fire-door core for rated openings, but the schedule’s construction column repeats the standard interior core description used elsewhere on the same sheet.
Confirm the door number against the life-safety plan, flag the mismatch between the scheduled core and the required label, and ask the architect to revise the schedule entry to the rated core and confirm the correct label. Recheck the frame and hardware preparation for the corrected assembly before closing the item.
Avoid a false conflict
A shared finish or species note does not mean every door sharing it has the same core or fire rating. Confirm the labeled rating and construction type against the life-safety plan for each opening rather than copying a nearby schedule row.
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.