# Groundbook AI — full site text > Complete readable text of https://groundbook.ai, generated 2026-09-03. The concise summary is at https://groundbook.ai/llms.txt. # Groundbook AI — Construction QA/QC and AI Plan Review Source: https://groundbook.ai/ Construction QA/QC and AI plan review for drawings, specifications, checklists, and building codes. Catch issues early to avoid project delays and rework. Construction QA/QC ## Catch plan conflicts before they reach the field. Upload drawings, specifications, checklists, reports, and codes. Groundbook AI reviews them together and links every finding to the source. Upload project PDFs Choose files or drop them here First project free - Architects - Structural engineers - MEP engineers - Civil engineers - Plan examiners - Contractors - Developers - Owners ### From project files to traceable findings Set up your first plan review in about 5 minutes. #### Upload the project set Upload drawings, specifications, review checklists, and building-code PDFs, then choose the checks you need. Most teams can start a review in about 5 minutes. #### Run a coordinated review Groundbook AI organizes and cross-checks the documents for you. All reviews finish in 20 minutes to 24 hours, depending on the project size and scope. #### Verify every finding See what may be wrong, why it matters, and which documents support the finding—before your team decides what to do next. Project files The 24×18 supply duct crosses the W18 beam near Grid C-4. Door 204 is scheduled at 60 minutes, while the spec calls for 90. ### One review across the entire document set Groundbook AI looks beyond a single sheet. It follows the relationships between disciplines and project requirements where costly issues often hide. #### Cross-discipline coordination Compare architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents for conflicts and missing coordination. #### Drawings against specifications Find materials, ratings, dimensions, equipment, and requirements that disagree between the drawings and project manual. #### Checklist conformance Run your own QA/QC, owner, lender, permit, or constructability checklist across the full document set. #### Building-code compliance Compare project documents with uploaded code sources and surface items that need a qualified reviewer’s attention. ### Evidence first. Better with every review. - 01 Reviews like an expert—not a search box Reads every sheet, schedule, note, and detail in context, then follows references across disciplines to check that the project agrees with itself. - 02 Shows the exact evidence Every issue links to the text, schedule row, callout, or drawing fragment that supports it. No vague “check this sheet” comments. - 03 Gets sharper from review outcomes Accepted, rejected, and corrected findings help reduce repeated noise and improve future checks. Your project documents stay private and are never used to train third-party AI models. - 04 Keeps your team in control Groundbook flags and documents possible issues. Your qualified reviewers decide what matters, with a full audit trail behind every decision. ### Built for every project team #### Project teams and disciplines Architecture, engineering, construction, review, and ownership For discipline-specific review or coordination across the full project team. - Architecture - Structural - Mechanical - Electrical - Plumbing - Civil - Fire protection - Landscape - Interiors - Code consultants - Facilities teams #### Building and project types Healthcare through infrastructure and renovation Examples—not limits: - Hospitals - Clinics - Medical offices - Laboratories - Life sciences - K–12 schools - Higher education - Offices - Commercial interiors - Tenant improvements - Retail - Restaurants - Hotels - Warehouses - Cold storage - Manufacturing - Data centers - Distribution centers - Storage facilities - Mixed-use - Multifamily - Single-family homes - ADUs - Senior living - Government - Public safety - Libraries - Museums and cultural - Places of worship - Airports - Transit facilities - Parking structures - Sports and recreation - Infrastructure - Renovations - Historic preservation #### Global project support Teams and projects around the world Groundbook AI supports teams worldwide. Our primary customer base is in the United States. - United States - Canada - Mexico - Brazil - Latin America - Caribbean - United Kingdom - Europe - Middle East - Africa - India - China - Japan - South Korea - Southeast Asia - Australia - New Zealand #### Major document languages Multilingual project documents supported Groundbook AI supports project documents in all major languages. Examples include: - English - Spanish - French - Portuguese - German - Italian - Dutch - Polish - Russian - Turkish - Mandarin Chinese - Japanese - Korean - Vietnamese - Thai - Indonesian - Arabic - Hebrew - Hindi - Bengali - Urdu - Other major languages ### FAQs **What is an AI plan checker?** An AI plan checker reviews construction documents together to surface possible conflicts, omissions, and compliance issues. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, checklists, and code documents and shows the source behind each finding. **How is Groundbook AI different from ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or Claude?** ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude are general-purpose AI assistants. Groundbook AI is a purpose-built construction document review system. It classifies project files, separates documents to check from supporting references, connects sheets, schedules, specifications, checklists, and code sources in an evidence-backed knowledge graph, and applies construction-specific review instructions across the set. Findings are structured by severity, discipline, impact, recommended action, and exact file, page, and drawing location. Groundbook AI may use leading AI models as components, but the product is the review workflow, project context, and traceable evidence—not a blank chat. See the full comparison. **What documents can Groundbook AI review?** Groundbook AI reviews construction drawings, project specifications, reviewer or owner checklists, and building-code PDFs. These can include architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire-protection, civil, and other project documents. **Can it review residential and commercial projects?** Yes. Groundbook AI is designed for every building type, from homes and ADUs to healthcare, education, commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and institutional projects. **How quickly can I start a Groundbook AI review?** You can set up a project review in about 5 minutes without taking a sales call. Upload the project files, select the checks, review the exact price, and pay as you go. **Can I collaborate with colleagues and other project stakeholders?** Yes. Use the Groundbook AI share feature to share a project with colleagues and stakeholders—including architects, engineers, contractors, and owners—so the team can review the same findings and source context. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI supports qualified project teams by accelerating the first review pass and organizing possible issues. Final design, engineering, code, and construction decisions remain with the responsible professionals and authorities. **Can Groundbook AI compare two versions of a drawing set?** Yes. Drawing version comparison is available to beta users upon request for constructability review and source-linked milestone change narratives. Explore drawing comparison. ### Review the plans before the field has to. --- # Compare Construction Drawing Versions — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/drawing-version-comparison/ Compare two PDF drawing sets, review constructability changes, and draft traceable milestone change narratives with Groundbook AI beta access available upon request. ## Turn drawing changes into a clear change narrative Compare a previous and current PDF drawing set, organize the changes, and focus review on constructability. Contractors can investigate what changed before pricing or building; architects and engineers can prepare a traceable milestone change narrative. ### From two sets to one reviewable story Separate “something moved on the page” from “this change may affect how the project is coordinated or built.” #### Add the previous and current sets Identify milestone, permit, bid, addendum, bulletin, or construction-document versions and align related sheets. #### Organize meaningful changes Group added, removed, and revised information by sheet, location, discipline, system, and possible constructability impact. #### Verify and communicate Review every cited change, then prepare a contractor-facing comparison or a design-team change narrative. ### Constructability review for builders. Change narratives for designers The same verified change can be framed differently for the team receiving it. A contractor may need to understand access, sequence, procurement, or trade coordination. An architect or engineer may need to explain what changed from DD to CD and point to the affected sheets. - Constructability implications Flag changes that may alter routing, clearances, access, installation, sequencing, or coordination. - Traceable change narrative Draft a concise milestone narrative with before-and-after sheet references for professional review. - Estimator handoff—not an estimate Organize changes that may deserve quantity, procurement, or pricing review without claiming a cost delta. ### Change evidence, not automatic conclusions A drawing difference is not automatically a construction problem or a cost change. The beta workflow helps teams find and organize possible implications; contractors, estimators, architects, and engineers verify the sources and make the project decisions. - No replacement for takeoff, estimating, or cost validation - No final constructability, design, or engineering determination - Source-linked changes reviewed by the responsible team ### About drawing comparison **Is drawing version comparison available today?** Yes. Drawing version comparison is available to beta users upon request. Book a demo to discuss your workflow and beta access. **Will it calculate the cost of each change?** No. The focus is constructability and document change. The workflow may organize changes that deserve an estimator’s attention, but takeoff, pricing, procurement, and cost validation remain with the contractor and estimating team. **Which drawing milestones can be compared?** The beta workflow can support comparisons such as Schematic Design to Design Development, DD to Construction Documents, permit resubmissions, bid addenda, bulletins, ASIs, and other issued PDF drawing sets. **What should we bring to a demo?** If possible, bring a redacted example of two drawing versions, the change narrative or comparison you create today, and the decisions that take the most manual effort. A sample is helpful but not required. ### Request Access for your next drawing comparison Book 30 minutes to discuss your current revision workflow and the drawing sets you want to compare. --- # The Drawing Set Knowledge Graph — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/knowledge-graph/ How Groundbook AI links every callout, schedule row, and code section into a knowledge graph, and why findings that read the whole set are better. ## A knowledge graph of your drawing set Findings that read the whole set, not one page at a time. The Groundbook AI knowledge graph is a map of everything in a construction document set and how it connects. Every callout, detail, schedule row, plan label, and code section is tied to the spot where it is printed and linked to the things it refers to on other sheets. Groundbook AI builds this graph first, then reviews the set as a whole—which is how it catches the conflicts that never appear on the same page. ### A drawing set is one design spread across hundreds of pages The detail is on one sheet. The schedule is on another. The note that changes both is on a third, and the spec section that governs all of them is in a different document entirely. Most review tools read a page at a time. A page-by-page reader can check what sits on the same sheet, but the expensive errors rarely do: the plan that disagrees with its detail, the detail that disagrees with the schedule, the schedule row that quietly contradicts the spec or the code. Those conflicts live between pages, so a page at a time is exactly the wrong unit of review. ### What Groundbook AI builds before it reviews anything Groundbook AI reads the set the way it was designed: as one connected thing. Every callout, detail, schedule row, plan label, and code section becomes part of a knowledge graph, with two kinds of connection: - Where it is printed. Each element is anchored to its exact spot on its sheet—the words and shapes themselves, not just a page number. - What it refers to. A callout is linked to the detail it points at. A schedule row is linked to the plan elements it governs and the spec section that defines it. A note is linked to every sheet it changes. The review then runs over the graph, not the pages. Anything connected can be checked against everything it is connected to: plan against detail, detail against schedule, schedule against spec and code. ### Why findings from a graph are better #### 01 · Cross-sheet conflicts Conflicts that only exist between pages become checkable: plan against detail, detail against schedule, schedule against spec and code. - Across sheets and disciplines - Across drawings, specs, checklists, and code sources #### 02 · Exact evidence Each finding highlights the words and shapes it is based on, on every sheet involved. No "see elsewhere." - Both sides of a conflict shown - Verifiable by the responsible professional #### 03 · One issue per root cause Related symptoms are grouped, so one fix clears them all. Not twenty comments about the same mistake. - The correction named once - Symptoms listed under it #### 04 · Full coverage Because the graph knows what is in the set, you can see what was reviewed—and what was not. - No silent gaps - Coverage you can inspect #### 05 · Checked before published A second independent pass tries to disprove each finding before it reaches you. - Findings framed for verification - Weak findings filtered out #### 06 · Gets better with your team Your reviewers' accept and reject decisions sharpen the next check. - Feedback flows into future reviews - Your standards, learned over time ### Professional judgment stays with your team The graph organizes the set and the findings organize the questions. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, and authorities having jurisdiction retain every professional decision. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **What is a drawing set knowledge graph?** A map of everything in a construction document set and how it connects: every callout, detail, schedule row, plan label, and code section, tied to the spot where it is printed and linked to the things it refers to on other sheets and in other documents. Groundbook AI builds this graph before it reviews anything. **How is reviewing a graph different from reviewing pages?** A page-by-page review can only compare what sits on the same page. Most costly document errors live between pages: a plan that disagrees with a detail, a detail that disagrees with a schedule, a schedule row that conflicts with a spec section or a code requirement. Reviewing the graph makes those cross-sheet relationships checkable. **What does a finding look like?** One finding per root cause. It names the problem, shows the exact words and shapes it is based on, highlighted on every sheet involved, and states the correction that resolves it. Related symptoms are grouped under the same finding, so one fix clears them all. **Does the review improve over time?** Yes. Every finding is challenged by a second independent pass before it is published, and your reviewers' accept and reject decisions sharpen the next check. **Does this replace professional review?** No. The graph organizes the set and the findings organize the questions. Design, engineering, code, and construction decisions remain with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction. ### See what a whole-set review finds on your set Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Hotels & Restaurants | Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/case-studies/waterfront-hotel-plan-review/ See how Groundbook AI reviewed a 156-page waterfront hotel, restaurant, retail, and dock set against 2025 California codes and surfaced 132 potential issues. ## What a 156-page hotel, restaurant, and waterfront review surfaced Groundbook reviewed one mixed-use hospitality drawing set against four uploaded 2025 California code volumes—and returned 132 potential issues spanning life safety, accessibility, structure, commercial-kitchen systems, energy, and drawing-set quality. - Waterfront hotel - Restaurant & bar - Retail - Dock & harborwalk Project details have been anonymized. Findings are potential issues for professional verification, not final code or engineering conclusions. Each finding was connected to supporting drawing or code context in the uploaded set. Counts describe this anonymized review only. They do not establish the source project's compliance, safety, or final issue disposition. ### One set, several occupancies, and a shoreline edge Hotels, restaurants, retail spaces, waterfront structures, and public access routes place very different requirements next to one another. The coordination burden lives at those boundaries. #### Many disciplines shared the same conditions Architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, energy, dock, and elevator information all appeared in the 156-page drawing package. #### Hospitality and commercial kitchens raise the stakes Sleeping-unit separations, accessible guest rooms, egress, alarms, cooking exhaust, make-up air, and fire suppression each depend on information repeated across plans, schedules, details, and notes. #### Project requirements extended beyond the drawings The review connected drawing evidence to uploaded volumes of the 2025 California Building, Mechanical, and Energy Codes instead of treating code checks as a separate page-by-page exercise. ### Six patterns across the 132 potential findings These generalized examples show the kinds of questions Groundbook returned to the project team with source context for verification. #### Hotel entry doors were scheduled without the required rating Sleeping-unit doors opening into an interior lobby were marked unrated even though the surrounding separation called for protected openings. If unresolved: Door procurement and the fire-partition strategy could proceed from incompatible requirements. #### Guard and handrail loads fell below the adopted requirement Architectural notes specified a lower design load, while structural details directed the requirement back to those notes without stating the governing load. If unresolved: Public waterfront and hotel-deck railings could be detailed or fabricated from incomplete design criteria. #### A grease exhaust fan was detailed over combustible support The commercial-kitchen exhaust fan was shown on a wood platform without a documented clearance or a noncombustible support condition. If unresolved: The support assembly could require redesign after equipment coordination or code review. #### Kitchen exhaust and outside-air intake were too close on the roof plan The drawing showed a separation appropriate to one exhaust rule, but the outside-air intake had a different requirement for Class 4 kitchen exhaust. If unresolved: Rooftop equipment could need relocation or a documented alternative calculation. #### Deferred fire-protection work was not fully listed Project notes and approval conditions required sprinkler, alarm, and waterfront standpipe systems, but the set's deferred-submittal list named only a different system. If unresolved: Required design packages and approval responsibilities could remain unclear during permitting. #### Energy forms, schedules, notes, and indexes drifted apart The review found differences in insulation, door and window products, space classifications, code editions, detail references, sheet indexes, and unfilled specification placeholders. If unresolved: Reviewers, bidders, and trades could rely on different versions of the project's requirements. ### The important questions crossed pages, disciplines, and codes The review did not establish that any downstream outcome occurred. It organized the source-backed questions that qualified professionals could investigate first. #### Mixed occupancies changed the governing requirements Hotel rooms, restaurant and bar spaces, retail areas, and public waterfront routes brought different fire, egress, accessibility, ventilation, and energy rules into the same set. #### The same fact appeared in several document forms Requirements repeated across plans, schedules, details, notes, specifications, energy forms, and approval conditions. Groundbook checked whether those versions agreed. #### Severity separated design questions from cleanup Four high-priority findings could be reviewed before 69 medium-priority coordination questions and 59 lower-priority documentation items. #### Every finding came back with its source context Reviewers could move from the issue summary to the relevant drawing and uploaded code language instead of reconstructing the comparison from scratch. Potential impacts are based on the issue type, not on verified outcomes from this anonymized project. ### Read the drawing set and the code sources as one connected system The review followed information across documents, grouped related symptoms into findings, and returned the evidence for a qualified reviewer to decide. - 1 Map the complete set Classify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, notes, approval conditions, and code sources. - 2 Connect repeated requirements Follow hotel, restaurant, retail, waterfront, structural, and building-system information wherever it reappears. - 3 Check drawings against sources Compare the project evidence with the uploaded 2025 California code volumes. - 4 Return a prioritized queue Group potential issues by root cause, severity, discipline, and supporting context. ### 132 questions to verify—not 132 automatic verdicts The output expands review coverage while preserving professional judgment and accountability. #### What this result means - Groundbook surfaced 132 potential issues worth professional review. - Four higher-priority findings can be investigated before document cleanup. - The review covered both full-set coordination and uploaded code sources. - Each finding included the project context used to produce it. #### What it does not mean - Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation. - The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant. - Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority. - Unverified savings, prevented RFIs, or project outcomes can be attributed to the review. ### The review is specific. The public story is not identifying This case study uses a generalized project description, aggregate results, and summarized finding patterns. It excludes source-document screenshots and details that could identify the project, its location, or its participants. - No address or location - No project name - No people or firm names - No permit or project IDs - No filenames - No sheet numbers - No revision dates - No exact design values ### About this hotel and restaurant plan review **What did Groundbook AI review in this case study?** A 156-page architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, energy, dock, and elevator drawing set for a mixed-use waterfront hospitality project. The set was checked against four uploaded 2025 California code volumes. **How many potential issues did the review surface?** 132 potential issues for professional verification: 4 high severity, 69 medium severity, and 59 low severity. **What kinds of potential issues did the review surface?** Fire and life-safety documentation gaps, commercial-kitchen exhaust questions, accessibility and egress conflicts, structural design criteria omissions, energy-model coordination issues, and drawing-set QA/QC problems. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional plan review?** No. Groundbook supports qualified professionals with a systematic first pass and traceable source context. Responsible architects, engineers, contractors, reviewers, and authorities verify every finding and retain responsibility for decisions. **How was project privacy protected?** The public case study omits the address, project name, firms, people, identifiers, filenames, sheet numbers, dates, screenshots, and exact design values. It uses a generalized project description, aggregate results, and summarized finding patterns. ### Continue from the case study ### Give the next drawing set a connected first pass Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context. --- # AI Plan Review for Mixed-Use Construction | Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/case-studies/mixed-use-residential-plan-review/ See how Groundbook AI surfaced 42 coordination risks across approximately 60 pages—and why unresolved issues can drive RFIs, rework, and delays. ## Catch coordination risks before they become RFIs, rework, or delays Across approximately 60 pages for a six-story mixed-use residential building, Groundbook connected structural and mechanical/plumbing information—and surfaced issues that could otherwise lead to RFIs, redesign, procurement mistakes, field rework, or commissioning delays. - Mixed-use residential - Six stories - Ground-floor commercial - Underground parking garage Project details have been anonymized. Findings are potential issues for professional verification, not final engineering conclusions. Each finding was connected to supporting source context in the uploaded set. The accuracy figure is a Groundbook product benchmark, not a project-specific measurement from this anonymized review. ### A compact set with dense coordination A six-story mixed-use building concentrates residential systems, commercial services, structure, parking ventilation, drainage, controls, and life-safety interfaces in one coordinated package. #### Information repeated across many views Equipment tags, floor elevations, pump duties, control sequences, water loads, and structural requirements appeared in plans, schedules, diagrams, details, and specifications. Repetition creates useful cross-checks—and opportunities for drift. #### Two disciplines, many interfaces The review connected structural information with mechanical and plumbing requirements, including openings, floor elevations, sumps, equipment, services, and the references that guide construction. #### Multiple issuance stages in one set Some information had moved through permit and tender revisions. Groundbook looked for cases where a newer requirement existed but the governing source or downstream references remained unclear. ### Six patterns behind the 42 potential findings Each example connects a document issue to the downstream risk it could create if the project team did not resolve it. #### Unclear governing revision Two structural schedules carried different requirements, while the set did not clearly state which version governed or update every downstream reference. If unresolved: Teams could price, detail, or install against different requirements, forcing a late clarification or redesign. #### Floor elevations did not agree Structural and mechanical plans showed the same floor area at elevations that differed by nearly two feet—a cross-discipline question requiring early verification. If unresolved: Openings, drainage, clearances, and tie-ins could be coordinated to incompatible datums, creating field rework. #### A required opening appeared in only one discipline A sump shown in the mechanical design was not represented in the corresponding structural slab and footing area. If unresolved: The omission could require late structural review, rerouting, coring, or other corrective field work. #### Notes pointed to missing or incorrect sheets Several plan notes sent readers to sheets or details that did not exist in the uploaded set or contained different information. If unresolved: Reviewers and trades could lose time locating intent, submit RFIs, or proceed from the wrong detail. #### Plans, schedules, and controls used different data Equipment tags, quantities, duties, materials, and operating sequences did not always reconcile across plans, diagrams, schedules, and specifications. If unresolved: Submittals, purchasing, controls programming, and commissioning could proceed from conflicting requirements. #### Calculations and unit conversions drifted Arithmetic totals and metric-imperial conversions included values that did not reconcile with the surrounding design information. If unresolved: Sizing, pressure, clearance, or quantity decisions could rely on values the coordinated set does not support. ### Document conflicts become project problems when they stay unresolved The review did not establish that these outcomes occurred. It gave qualified teams an earlier opportunity to investigate the conditions that can produce them. #### More RFIs and redesign cycles Unclear revisions, incompatible elevations, and missing coordination can send questions back through the design team after pricing or construction planning has started. #### Wrong information reaches submittals and purchasing Conflicting tags, quantities, duties, and material requirements can carry into equipment selection, fabrication, procurement, and controls programming. #### Late rerouting, openings, and rework Missing penetrations or cross-discipline mismatches can require new reviews, changed routes, corrective openings, or installation rework in the field. #### Commissioning and operational uncertainty Inconsistent sequences, setpoints, tags, and scheduled values can slow functional testing or leave the intended operation unclear at turnover. Potential impacts are based on the type of coordination issue, not on verified outcomes from this anonymized project. ### Read each page. Connect the repeated facts. Return the evidence The value of a coordinated first pass comes from following information wherever it reappears—not treating every drawing as an isolated page. - 1 Classify the set Organize disciplines, sheets, details, schedules, specifications, and repeated project entities. - 2 Cross-check relationships Compare requirements within a discipline and across structural and MEP sources. - 3 Structure potential findings Group possible conflicts, omissions, reference errors, and calculation discrepancies. - 4 Send evidence to the reviewer Return source-linked context so a qualified professional can verify and resolve each item. ### A review queue—not an automatic verdict The output expands review coverage while preserving professional judgment and accountability. #### What this result means - Groundbook surfaced 42 potential issues worth professional investigation. - Higher-priority findings can be reviewed before lower-impact document cleanup. - Examples crossed revisions, disciplines, schedules, references, and calculations. - Each result can be checked against its supporting project context. #### What it does not mean - Every potential finding is a confirmed design error. - The project was noncompliant, unsafe, or unbuildable. - Groundbook replaced the responsible architect, engineer, contractor, or authority. - Unverified savings, prevented RFIs, or project outcomes can be attributed to the review. ### The lesson is public. The project is not This case study uses only a generalized building description and aggregate review results. It intentionally excludes source-document screenshots and information that could identify the project, its location, or its participants. - No address or location - No people or firm names - No project or permit IDs - No filenames - No drawing numbers - No revision dates - No exact design values - No unredacted screenshots ### About this AI plan review **What did Groundbook AI review in this case study?** Two structural and mechanical/plumbing drawing files totaling approximately 60 pages for a six-story mixed-use residential building with ground-floor commercial space and a two-level underground parking garage. **What kinds of potential issues did the review surface?** Possible revision conflicts, cross-discipline elevation mismatches, missing coordination elements, broken drawing references, schedule inconsistencies, and calculation or unit-conversion discrepancies. **What could happen if these drawing issues were not addressed?** Depending on professional review and resolution, unresolved drawing conflicts could contribute to RFIs, redesign, incorrect procurement or fabrication, field rework, schedule pressure, and commissioning or operational uncertainty. This case study does not claim that those outcomes occurred on the source project. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional plan review?** No. Groundbook supports qualified professionals with a systematic first pass and traceable evidence. Responsible architects, engineers, contractors, and reviewers verify every finding and retain responsibility for decisions. **How was project privacy protected?** The case study omits the project address, names, firms, identifiers, filenames, drawing numbers, dates, screenshots, and exact design values. Only generalized building information and aggregate results are included. ### Continue from the case study ### Give the next drawing set a connected first pass Upload the project, review the price before payment, and receive structured potential findings with source context. --- # Learn: Construction Document Review Guides — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/learn/ Practical guides on construction document QA/QC, plan review and permitting, cross-discipline coordination, change narratives, and specification review. ## Guides for reviewing construction documents Practical, milestone-ready guidance for architects, engineers, contractors, owners, and plans examiners—written by a team of AI engineers, structural engineers, and architects. ### Comparisons and proof ### Put a guide to work on your next set Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # California AB 253: Third-Party Plan Review Explained Source: https://groundbook.ai/learn/california-ab-253-private-plan-review/ What California AB 253 means for third-party residential plan review: the 30-business-day trigger, eligible projects, reviewer qualifications, and permit process. ## California AB 253 and third-party residential plan review California's Residential Private Permitting Review Act creates a time-limited path for certain residential applicants to retain a qualified private plan reviewer when a city or county's plan-check timeline exceeds 30 business days. California AB 253 is enacted law. Effective October 10, 2025, it allows an applicant for certain 1-to-10-unit, residential-only projects to retain a qualified private professional provider at the applicant's expense when the city or county estimates more than 30 business days for plan check—or has not determined compliance within 30 business days after the application is deemed complete. The law establishes notice, qualification, affidavit, report, and local-agency response requirements; it does not let any architect, engineer, or AI tool independently issue a permit. ### Use Groundbook AI to move AB 253 plan review faster Qualified private professional providers can use Groundbook AI to screen the complete permit set, cross-check uploaded requirements, and investigate traceable findings before preparing the statutory affidavit and report—helping the plan-check and permitting workflow move faster without changing who makes the legal determination. ### AB 253 is enacted law—not a pending proposal Assembly Bill 253, the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, was approved by the Governor and chaptered as Chapter 487 of the Statutes of 2025 on October 10, 2025. Because it was enacted as an urgency statute, it took effect that day. The private-review provisions in Health and Safety Code Section 17960.3 remain in effect only until January 1, 2036. The official sources are the chaptered AB 253 text, the Legislature's bill status and history, and the Governor's October 10, 2025 signing announcement. This guide summarizes the enacted text for general information. It is not legal advice, and applicants and reviewers should confirm the current process with the city or county and qualified California counsel. ### When may an applicant use a private plan reviewer? The clock does not start when an applicant first contacts the building department. It starts when the residential building-permit application is deemed complete under Government Code Section 65913.3. From there, AB 253 creates two paths: - The city's or county's estimate exceeds 30 business days. When the complete application is acknowledged, the jurisdiction must provide an estimated timeframe for determining whether it complies with permit standards. If that estimate is longer than 30 business days, the applicant may retain a private professional provider. - No compliance determination arrives within 30 business days. Even if the original estimate was shorter, the applicant may retain a provider if the jurisdiction has not determined compliance within 30 business days after the application was deemed complete. The applicant pays for the private review and must notify the city or county of the intent to retain a provider no later than five business days after receiving the over-30-day estimate or after the 30-business-day period expires. That notice deadline is an important part of the statutory process. Common shorthand to avoid: AB 253 is not a general right to bypass a building department after 30 calendar days. The statute uses business days, a complete application, specific notice timing, and defined project and reviewer qualifications. ### Which residential projects qualify? AB 253 defines an eligible “residential building permit” narrowly. It covers either: - New residential construction containing at least 1 and no more than 10 dwelling units, containing only residential units, with no floor used for human occupancy more than 40 feet above ground level; or - An addition to or remodel of an existing residential-only building with 1 to 10 units, when the work adds residential units and the completed building will have no more than 10 units, subject to the same occupied-floor height limit. The enacted text does not describe eligibility simply as “four stories or fewer.” The controlling test is whether any floor used for human occupancy is more than 40 feet above ground level. It also requires a residential-only building, so a mixed-use building with commercial space does not fit this definition. ### Who qualifies as a private professional provider? A provider must satisfy both professional-licensing and plans-examiner certification requirements. Under AB 253, the provider must be: - A professional engineer licensed under California's Professional Engineers Act or an architect licensed under California's Architects Practice Act; and - Currently certified as a residential plans examiner by the International Code Council, currently certified as a plans examiner by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, or currently certified by another state, national, or international association the local agency accepts for its own residential plans examiners. The provider must not have a financial interest in the residential building permit or in preparing the project's plans and specifications. A professional license by itself is therefore not enough, and the project's designer does not automatically qualify to perform the independent statutory review. ### What happens after the private plan check? The private provider checks the plans and specifications for compliance with the State Housing Law requirements and applicable local ordinances. AB 253 does not provide a separate discipline-by-discipline scope; the governing state and local requirements define the review. The provider must prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury stating whether the plans and specifications comply and confirming that the provider performed the plan check. The applicant submits a report to the city or county containing: - The provider's affidavit; - The changes necessary for compliance if the provider finds that the plans do not comply; and - Any additional information required by the city or county. Within 10 business days after receiving the report, the city or county must either issue the residential building permit when the plans comply or provide written notice identifying the remaining noncompliance and what must be remedied. If the jurisdiction does neither within that period and the provider's affidavit states that the plans comply, the statute says the plans are deemed compliant and the permit is deemed approved. The applicant must indemnify the local agency from property damage or personal injury arising from construction performed under plans checked through this process. Corrected plans may be resubmitted when the jurisdiction identifies noncompliance. ### What cities and counties must publish or report AB 253 also changes local-agency transparency and reporting: - A city or county that charges residential building-permit fees must prepare a fee schedule and post it on its website. This requirement appears in the current Health and Safety Code Section 17951. - After a residential permit application is deemed complete, the jurisdiction must give the applicant an estimated timeframe for its compliance determination. - Beginning April 1, 2027, jurisdictions must include private-review counts, local-review counts, and related staffing information in specified annual reports. Local application instructions, required report formats, accepted examiner certifications, and submission portals may differ. Applicants should use the jurisdiction's current published procedure rather than treating a general summary as a filing checklist. ### Where AI plan review fits—and where it does not AB 253 creates a legal role for a qualified human private professional provider. An AI plan-review product is not a California-licensed engineer or architect, cannot satisfy the statutory certification requirements, cannot sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury, and cannot issue a building permit. Groundbook AI can help the qualified provider move faster through the review work that comes before the statutory affidavit and report. Instead of manually opening every drawing, specification, checklist, and code source one at a time, the reviewer can run a traceable first pass across the complete document set and investigate possible coordination and compliance issues from the cited file, page, and drawing location. - Screen the complete permit set sooner: cross-check architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents in one review. - Apply the sources selected for the project: include specifications, jurisdiction checklists, local amendments, and uploaded code PDFs. - Start professional review from traceable findings: give the licensed reviewer the issue, supporting evidence, and exact source location instead of an unstructured AI response. That faster, more organized first pass can help an AB 253 plan check—and the path to a permit—move faster. The qualified provider still decides what complies, prepares and signs the statutory documents, and retains professional responsibility; the city or county retains its role under the enacted process. Groundbook AI does not guarantee permit timing or approval. ### A practical AB 253 preparation checklist - Confirm that the project fits the statute's unit, residential-only, work-type, and occupied-floor-height limits. - Obtain and retain the jurisdiction's written determination that the application is complete. - Record the estimated review timeframe and the date the 30-business-day period begins. - Identify a California-licensed architect or engineer with a plans-examiner certification the local agency accepts. - Check independence and financial-interest restrictions before retaining the provider. - Send the required notice to the city or county within the applicable five-business-day window. - Confirm the jurisdiction's report format, required additional information, local amendments, fee schedule, and submission method. - Keep the affidavit, report, corrections, delivery records, and every response from the jurisdiction in one permit file. Because deadlines and deemed-approval consequences can be legally significant, applicants should coordinate the actual filing with the jurisdiction and qualified counsel. ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **Is California AB 253 currently in effect?** Yes. AB 253 was approved and chaptered on October 10, 2025, and took effect immediately as an urgency statute. Health and Safety Code Section 17960.3 is scheduled to remain in effect until January 1, 2036. **Does AB 253 use 30 calendar days or 30 business days?** Thirty business days. The period begins after the residential building-permit application is deemed complete, not when an applicant first contacts or submits preliminary material to the building department. **Does AB 253 apply to every residential project?** No. It generally covers residential-only new construction with 1 to 10 units and certain additions or remodels that add units, with no floor used for human occupancy more than 40 feet above ground level. The statutory definition should be checked against the specific project. **Can any California architect or engineer perform the AB 253 review?** No. The provider also needs a current residential plans-examiner or plans-examiner certification identified in the statute or another certification the local agency recognizes, and must satisfy the financial-interest restrictions. **Does the private plan reviewer issue the building permit?** No. The provider performs the plan check and prepares the affidavit and report. The city or county acts on the report. The statute also contains a deemed-approval mechanism if the jurisdiction does not act within 10 business days and the affidavit states that the plans comply. **Can Groundbook AI serve as the private professional provider under AB 253?** No. Groundbook AI is an AI-assisted document-review tool, not the California-licensed and certified human provider defined by the statute. It can help a qualified reviewer run a source-linked first pass, but the professional performs the legal review, signs the affidavit, and retains judgment and responsibility. --- # Construction Document QA/QC Checklist (Free Template) Source: https://groundbook.ai/learn/construction-document-qa-qc-checklist/ A practical QA/QC checklist for construction drawings and specifications: set integrity, coordination, each discipline, specs, and code items. Free to copy. ## Construction document QA/QC checklist A milestone-ready checklist for architects, engineers, contractors, and owners, grouped the way review teams actually work. Copy it, trim it, and run it before every issue. A construction document QA/QC checklist is a structured list of checks a project team runs on drawings and specifications before a milestone issue—DD, CD, permit, bid, or construction. Good checklists cover set integrity, cross-discipline coordination, each discipline's internal consistency, drawings against specifications, and conformance to owner, permit, and code requirements. The checklist below is written to be run by people, and to be uploaded to Groundbook AI as a review reference. ### What the checklist is for Most document errors are not design mistakes. They are consistency failures: a wall type changed on one plan but not the schedule, a beam deepened in the structural set while the mechanical route stayed put, a spec section that still names the product from two revisions ago. Each is cheap to fix on paper and expensive to fix in the field. For industry background, the Construction Industry Institute's Forecasting and Minimizing Field Rework connects field rework with cost growth, schedule delays, productivity impacts, and repeated work. A QA/QC checklist turns "someone should look at that" into a repeatable pass. It does not replace the professional review of the architect or engineer of record; it makes sure the routine questions are asked every time, on every sheet, before the set leaves the office. ### The checklist #### 1. Set integrity - Sheet index matches the sheets in the set, including consultant sheets and any deleted or added sheets - Every sheet carries the same project name, number, issue date, and revision - Revision clouds and deltas correspond to the revision block; superseded revisions are removed - General notes, abbreviations, and symbols are current and used consistently across disciplines - Every detail, section, and enlarged-plan callout points to a sheet and detail that exist - North arrows, grids, levels, and elevations agree between disciplines #### 2. Cross-discipline coordination - Structural framing (beams, transfers, slab edges, depressions) matches architectural plans and sections - Floor-to-floor heights and top-of-steel or top-of-slab elevations agree between architectural and structural sets - Openings required by mechanical, plumbing, and electrical (shafts, chases, sleeves, louvers) appear on architectural and structural drawings - Duct, pipe, and conduit mains clear beams, joists, and ceiling heights shown on the RCP - Equipment locations, weights, and pads are on the structural drawings; clearances are on the architectural plans - Fire-rated walls, floors, and shafts are continuous across disciplines, and penetrations through them are identified - Civil grades, utility inverts, and site structures agree with the building's finish floor and foundation drawings #### 3. Architectural - Room names and numbers agree between plans, RCPs, finish schedules, door schedules, and enlarged plans - Door, window, and hardware schedules match what is tagged on plans and elevations - Wall types on plans match the wall-type legend, ratings, and acoustic requirements - Dimensions close; critical clearances (accessibility, egress, equipment) are dimensioned, not implied - Elevations, sections, and details agree with each other on materials, heights, and assemblies - Accessibility routes, turning spaces, reach ranges, and toilet-room clearances are shown and dimensioned #### 4. Structural - Member sizes on plans match schedules and typical details; connections are called out where required - Loads, deflection criteria, and design codes in general notes match the specifications and calculations - Foundation plan reflects final column and wall locations; footing steps follow the site grades - Openings, penetrations, and edge conditions requested by other disciplines are framed - Special inspection, testing, and deferred-submittal requirements are listed and complete #### 5. MEP and fire protection - Equipment schedules match tags on plans and the specification sections that describe them - Capacities, voltages, and connection sizes agree between mechanical, electrical, and plumbing sheets - Risers, shafts, and mains are continuous floor to floor and land where the plans say they do - Fire-protection coverage, riser locations, and rated-corridor conditions align with the life-safety plan - Controls, sequences, and points lists describe the equipment actually scheduled #### 6. Drawings against specifications - Every material, product, and system on the drawings has a specification section, and vice versa - Ratings, performance values, finishes, and sizes agree between drawings, schedules, and specs - Submittal, mock-up, and testing requirements in the specs are achievable with what is drawn - Division 01 requirements (phasing, temporary work, closeout) do not contradict drawing notes #### 7. Code, owner, and permit requirements - The code summary sheet matches the occupancy, construction type, heights, areas, and separations drawn - Egress widths, travel distances, and exit counts on the life-safety plan are supported by the floor plans - Owner standards, checklists, and program requirements are traceable to a sheet or spec section - Jurisdiction comments from earlier submittals are resolved and the resolution is visible in the set ### How to run it at each milestone Do not run the whole list at every issue. Weight it by milestone: - Design development: set integrity, cross-discipline coordination, and the code summary. This is where geometry gets locked. - Construction documents: everything, with emphasis on schedules, details, and drawings against specifications. - Permit: code and requirements section, plus set integrity so the plans examiner is not chasing missing sheets. - Bid and buyout: drawings against specifications and scope boundaries, because that is where change orders are born. - Construction: re-run coordination on any re-issue; a small revision on one sheet is the classic source of a field conflict. Assign each section to the discipline that owns it, and keep a single log of open items with the sheet reference. A finding without a sheet number will not get fixed. ### Where AI plan review fits The list above is long because the set is long. Reading every relationship on a 300-sheet project twice is the part humans do least reliably, and it is the part Groundbook AI is built for: it classifies every file, connects sheets, schedules, specifications, and uploaded code sources in a project knowledge graph, and returns possible issues with the exact sheet and location. Upload this checklist as a reference document and the review will apply it across the set. The findings are questions, not verdicts. The architect and engineers of record still decide what is an error and what is intent—the tool makes sure the first pass covered everything. ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **What is QA/QC in construction documents?** Quality assurance is the process a firm follows so documents are produced correctly; quality control is the check of the documents themselves before they are issued. A QA/QC checklist is the quality-control part: a repeatable list of items reviewed on the drawings and specifications at each milestone. **How is a QA/QC checklist different from a plan check?** A plan check is performed by a jurisdiction or third-party reviewer to confirm a permit submittal meets adopted codes. A QA/QC checklist is run by the project team on its own set, and it covers coordination, consistency, and owner requirements in addition to code items. **Can I upload my own checklist to Groundbook AI?** Yes. Upload a firm, owner, permit, or constructability checklist as a reference document, and Groundbook AI will apply it across the drawings and specifications in the project and return possible conformance issues with the source location. ### Run this checklist across your next set Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # 15 Cross-Discipline Coordination Errors in Construction Drawings Source: https://groundbook.ai/learn/cross-discipline-coordination-errors/ Fifteen coordination errors that survive review—revision conflicts, elevation mismatches, missing openings, schedule drift—and how to check for each one. ## 15 cross-discipline coordination errors in construction drawings The same handful of patterns show up on almost every project. Here is where each one hides, and the check that catches it. Cross-discipline coordination errors are conflicts between the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire-protection, and civil documents of the same project: two sheets that describe the same element differently, or an element one discipline needs that another never drew. They survive review because each discipline's set is internally consistent; the error only appears when sheets from two sets are read together. In an anonymized Groundbook AI review of about 60 structural and mechanical pages, these patterns accounted for most of the 42 potential findings. ### Why coordination errors survive review Each discipline checks its own drawings against its own drawings. The mechanical engineer confirms the duct schedule matches the duct plan; the structural engineer confirms the beam schedule matches the framing plan. Neither is asked, sheet by sheet, whether the duct fits under the beam. On a large set, the number of cross-set relationships is far larger than the number of sheets, and nobody's fee covers reading all of them twice. The errors below are grouped by the kind of relationship that breaks. For each: where it hides, and how to check. ### Revisions and references - Two governing revisions. A structural sheet carries revision 3 while the architectural plan it depends on is at revision 4, and the set does not say which controls. Check: compare the revision block on every sheet against the issue log; flag any sheet older than the sheets that reference it. - Callouts to sheets that do not exist. A detail bubble references S5.12 after the structural set was renumbered to S5.11. Check: every callout, section marker, and "see" note resolves to a sheet and detail in the current index. - Notes pointing to the wrong discipline. "See mechanical for louver size" when the louver is on the architectural elevations only. Check: trace every cross-discipline note to a drawn element. ### Geometry and elevations - Floor elevation mismatch. Architectural level 3 at 124'-6" and structural top of slab at 124'-0", with the difference never reconciled by a topping or finish. Check: compare level datums between the architectural building sections and structural framing plans at every floor. - Grid offsets. A column grid shifted 6 inches in one discipline after a late plan change. Check: overlay grid dimensions across disciplines; confirm grid-to-grid strings match. - Beam depth versus ceiling height. A transfer beam deepened in the structural set while the RCP still shows a 9'-0" ceiling that cannot exist under it. Check: beam bottom elevation against ceiling elevation along the beam's length, then against duct mains crossing it. - Slab depressions and steps. Depressions for tile, showers, or equipment drawn on architectural plans but missing from the structural slab plan. Check: every finish change and threshold on the architectural set against the structural slab edge and depression plan. ### Systems and openings - Required opening shown in one discipline. A shaft, chase, or roof opening on the mechanical plan with no corresponding framed opening in the structural set, or no rated shaft wall in the architectural set. Check: list every penetration larger than a sleeve and confirm it appears in all three sets. - Duct or pipe route through a structural member. The classic duct-crosses-beam conflict at a corridor, or a drain line through a grade beam. Check: mains and risers against framing and foundation plans wherever they change level or direction. - Equipment without support. Rooftop units, transformers, or a generator on the MEP plans with no pad, dunnage, or reinforced slab in the structural set. Check: every scheduled piece of equipment against the structural drawings for a support or load note. - Rated assemblies that stop. A rated corridor on the life-safety plan whose wall type changes to non-rated on the enlarged plan, or a rated shaft that loses its rating at the roof. Check: trace every rated line through plans, wall types, and details from foundation to roof. ### Schedules and specifications - Schedule drift. Door 204 scheduled at 60 minutes, tagged on the plan with a 90-minute wall type. Check: every scheduled item against its plan tag and the assembly it sits in. - Equipment schedule versus specification. A schedule lists a 460 V unit while the spec section describes a 208 V product, or the mechanical schedule shows a capacity the electrical panel schedule cannot serve. Check: capacities, voltages, and product references across mechanical, electrical, and specification sections. ### Calculations and units - Unit-conversion errors. A schedule that mixes metric and imperial, or a calculation that carries a value in the wrong unit into a schedule. Check: spot-check any schedule that reports capacities, flows, or loads against its calculation and against the units used on the plan. - Inconsistent design criteria. Structural general notes citing one snow or wind value while the calculations or the specifications cite another. Check: design criteria in general notes, specifications, and calculation cover sheets against each other. ### How to catch them systematically Every check above has the same shape: take an element on one sheet and find it on another. That is a tractable job for a person on a small set and an impossible one on a large set, which is why Groundbook AI builds a project knowledge graph across drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources and cross-checks the relationships for you. Findings come back with the exact sheet and location on both sides of the conflict, so the responsible engineer or architect can decide which is right. See the mixed-use residential case study for what that looked like on a real set. ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **What is the most common coordination error in construction drawings?** Consistency failures between a plan and its schedule, and between two disciplines describing the same element—floor elevations, openings, and beam-versus-duct conflicts—are the patterns that appear on almost every project. **Does clash detection catch these?** Clash detection finds physical interferences in a 3D model. Many of the errors above have no geometry to clash: a wrong revision, a missing callout, a schedule that disagrees with a spec. Those are document-review problems, not model problems. **Who is responsible for fixing coordination errors?** The architect or engineer of record for each discipline resolves the conflict in their documents. A review tool or a checklist surfaces the question; the professionals decide the answer. ### Find these on your set before the field does Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # How to Write a DD-to-CD Change Narrative Source: https://groundbook.ai/learn/dd-to-cd-change-narrative/ What a DD-to-CD change narrative is, who reads it, what to include, and a step-by-step method for building one from two drawing sets. ## How to write a DD-to-CD change narrative Owners, estimators, and contractors want one document that explains what changed between milestones and why. Here is how to produce it without re-reading both sets from scratch. A DD-to-CD change narrative is a written summary of what changed between the design development set and the construction documents set: added, removed, or revised scope, organized by discipline and building area, with the sheets affected and the reason for each change. Estimators use it to reconcile pricing, owners use it to confirm the project still matches what they approved, and contractors use it to understand what moved before bidding. It is built by comparing the two sets and explaining the differences—not by re-describing the whole project. ### Who needs the narrative and when - Owner and developer: to confirm the CD set is the DD set they approved, plus agreed changes—and to catch scope that drifted in without a decision. - Cost estimator: to update the DD estimate by delta rather than re-quantifying the building; a good narrative cuts reconciliation time dramatically. - Contractor and preconstruction team: to focus constructability review on what changed, and to price the change rather than the whole set. - Design team: as the record of decisions between milestones, which pays for itself at the first "why did this change?" meeting. The same method applies to CD-to-permit, permit-to-bid, and addendum narratives; DD-to-CD is simply the one with the most change. ### What goes in it Keep the structure boring so readers can find things. A workable outline: - Header: project, the two sets compared (issue names and dates), who prepared the narrative, date. - Summary: five to ten lines on the biggest changes and their drivers (owner request, code comment, coordination, cost, consultant input). - Changes by discipline: architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, civil, landscape, interiors. Within each, group by building area or system. - For each change: what changed, the sheets affected in both sets, why it changed, and any cost or schedule implication the design team is aware of. One or two sentences each. - Unchanged scope worth confirming: items the reader might expect to have changed but did not, such as a program area that was discussed and kept. - Open items: decisions still pending that will produce further change. Every entry needs a sheet reference on both sides. "Revised lobby ceiling" is a reminder; "Lobby ceiling revised from GWB at 12'-0" (DD A2.11) to wood slat at 11'-6" (CD A2.11, A7.03)" is a narrative entry. ### How to build it from two drawing sets - Align the sheet lists. Match each CD sheet to its DD counterpart; list sheets that were added, deleted, or renumbered. Renumbering alone hides a surprising amount of change. - Compare sheet by sheet. Overlay or side-by-side each pair, discipline by discipline. Note every difference, even ones that look cosmetic; decide later which are narrative-worthy. - Check the schedules and specifications. Plan changes are visible; schedule changes are not. Compare door, finish, equipment, and structural schedules line by line, and compare the specification tables of contents. - Attribute each change to a driver. Pull from meeting minutes, owner directives, code comments, and consultant coordination logs. A change without a driver is the one the owner will question. - Group and write. Cluster the raw differences into changes a reader cares about, write the entries, and have each discipline lead confirm their section. - Route it with the set. The narrative belongs in the same transmittal as the CD issue, not a week later. ### Common mistakes - Describing the building instead of the change. The reader has the set; they need the delta. - Missing schedule and spec changes. The most expensive changes are often a line in a schedule. - No sheet references. Without them the estimator has to find the change again. - No driver. "Revised per coordination" invites the question "coordination with what?" - Written from memory. The narrative should come from the comparison, not from what the team recalls changing. ### How drawing version comparison helps Step 2 above is the slow part, and it is the part that gets skipped under deadline. Groundbook AI's drawing version comparison (available to beta users on request) takes the previous and current PDF sets, organizes the differences, and helps architects and engineers draft a source-linked change narrative between milestones, while contractors can focus constructability review on what actually moved. It does not replace quantity takeoff, estimating, or the professional review of the change—it makes sure the comparison is complete before anyone writes. ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **Who writes the DD-to-CD change narrative?** Usually the architect, with each engineering discipline contributing its section. On some projects the owner's representative or the contractor's preconstruction team prepares it from the two sets. **How detailed should each entry be?** One or two sentences: what changed, the sheets affected in both sets, and why. Detail belongs in the drawings; the narrative points to it. **Can Groundbook AI create a change narrative automatically?** Groundbook AI compares the two PDF sets and helps draft a source-linked narrative for the design team to edit and confirm. Professional judgment about what the changes mean stays with the team. ### Compare your next two sets with sources attached Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Construction Plan Review Glossary: 30 Terms Defined Source: https://groundbook.ai/learn/construction-plan-review-glossary/ Plain-English definitions of the terms used in construction document review: QA/QC, coordination, RFIs, submittals, governing documents, plan check, and more. ## Construction plan review glossary The vocabulary of construction document review, defined the way project teams actually use it—for new engineers, owners sitting in on coordination meetings, and anyone evaluating an AI review tool. Construction plan review is the systematic examination of a project's drawings, specifications, and related documents to find errors, omissions, conflicts, and compliance questions before construction. It happens in two settings: jurisdictional plan check, where a building department reviews a permit submittal against adopted codes, and project QA/QC, where the design and construction team reviews its own set before a milestone. The glossary below defines the thirty terms that come up most in both. ### Documents and milestones **Construction documents (CDs)** The complete drawings and specifications issued for permit, bid, and construction. The CD set is the legal description of what gets built. **Design development (DD)** The phase between schematic design and CDs in which systems, materials, and dimensions are fixed. DD sets are commonly reviewed for coordination before the CD push begins. **Issued for construction (IFC)** The revision of the documents the contractor is authorized to build from. When sheets carry different revisions, the IFC issue establishes which governs. **Specifications (the project manual)** The written companion to the drawings, organized by CSI divisions, defining materials, products, quality, and execution. Drawings show where; specifications say what and how well. **Addendum** A change to the bid documents issued before contract award. Addenda modify drawings or specifications and must be tracked, because a sheet may be superseded without being redrawn. **Drawing index** The list of every sheet in the set, usually on the cover or general sheets. An index that disagrees with the actual sheets is one of the most common—and most consequential—set-integrity errors. **Revision / delta** A numbered or lettered change to an issued sheet, marked with a revision cloud and recorded in the sheet's revision block. Two sheets showing different data with no clear governing revision is a classic review finding. **As-built / record drawings** Drawings updated after construction to show what was actually built, including field changes. Used for facilities management and future renovation. ### Review processes **QA/QC (quality assurance / quality control)** The internal process a design or construction team runs to catch errors before documents are issued. QA is the system (checklists, standards, review gates); QC is the checking itself. **Plan check (jurisdictional plan review)** A building department's review of a permit submittal against adopted codes and completeness requirements, ending in approval or a comment letter. Performed by plans examiners for the authority having jurisdiction. **Authority having jurisdiction (AHJ)** The organization—typically a city or county building department, sometimes a fire marshal or state agency—with legal authority to enforce codes and approve the work. **Plans examiner** The professional who performs jurisdictional plan check. Their comments must be resolved before a permit is issued. **Milestone review** A QA/QC pass tied to an issue: end of DD, before permit, before bid, or before construction. The most effective reviews happen at milestones, when fixes are still cheap. **Constructability review** A contractor-led review asking whether the documents can actually be built as drawn: access, sequence, tolerances, means and methods, and missing information that would surface as field questions. **Peer review** An independent review of one firm's work by another qualified professional, common on structural designs and high-risk projects. **Overlay / drawing comparison** Superimposing two versions of a sheet to see what changed between issues. Useful for version control; blind to conflicts that never appear on the same sheet. **AI plan review** Software that reads the document set and surfaces possible coordination, consistency, and compliance issues for professional verification. Tools differ in scope: some check drawings against a code library, some scan drawings alone, and some—like Groundbook AI —cross-check drawings against specifications, checklists, and code sources you upload. No AI tool approves permits or replaces the responsible professional. ### Findings and their consequences **Coordination error** A conflict between disciplines: a duct through a beam, a slab elevation that disagrees with the plumbing plan, an opening on one discipline's sheets and absent from another's. The costliest class of document error because each discipline is internally correct. **Consistency error** A disagreement within or between documents describing the same element: a schedule that conflicts with a plan callout, a note referencing a sheet that does not exist, a door rated differently in the spec. **Omission / missing information** Scope the documents fail to describe: an undimensioned critical clearance, a detail callout with no detail, equipment with no power shown. Omissions become change orders. **Code compliance finding** A possible conflict between the documents and an applicable code or standard. In QA/QC these are framed as questions for the designer; only the AHJ decides compliance. **RFI (request for information)** The contractor's formal question when documents are unclear or conflicting. Every RFI costs review time and often schedule; large projects accumulate hundreds, most of them traceable to document errors a review could have caught. **Change order** A contract modification, usually with cost and schedule impact. Document errors found in the field convert to change orders; the same errors found on paper convert to revisions. **Rework** Built work that must be demolished or modified because the documents conflicted or the field proceeded on the wrong information. The most expensive outcome of a missed review finding. **Governing document** When two documents conflict, the one that controls. Contracts establish an order of precedence (often specifications over drawings, large scale over small); a review's job is to surface the conflict so the right professional decides. ### Coordination vocabulary **Cross-discipline coordination** Making the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire-protection, and civil documents describe the same building. See the fifteen most common coordination errors. **Clash detection** Testing 3D model geometry for physical interference. Related to but distinct from plan review, which works on the issued 2D documents and also catches non-geometric conflicts—ratings, schedules, references, specifications. **Schedule (drawing schedule)** A table on the drawings—doors, windows, equipment, finishes, columns—that must agree with the plans that tag it and the specs that define it. Schedule-versus-plan conflicts are among the most frequent review findings. **Detail callout / reference** The marker pointing from a plan or section to a detail on another sheet. Broken references—callouts to sheets or details that do not exist—are pure consistency errors and pure review material. **Sleeve / block-out / penetration** An opening through structure required by another discipline. Openings shown on mechanical drawings but missing from structural ones are a canonical coordination failure. **Submittal** The contractor's documentation—shop drawings, product data, samples—showing how it intends to meet the specifications, reviewed by the design team before fabrication. **Value engineering (VE)** Substituting materials or systems to reduce cost. VE changes made late are a common source of consistency errors, because the change lands on some documents and not others. Reviewing for all of the above across a full set is exactly the first pass Groundbook AI automates: findings come back with severity, discipline, impact, and a link to the exact file, page, and location, for the responsible professionals to verify. See what that surfaced on a real mixed-use set. ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **What is the difference between plan review and plan check?** Teams use the terms loosely, but plan check usually means the jurisdictional review a building department performs on a permit submittal, while plan review covers any systematic review of the documents, including a team's own QA/QC before a milestone. **What is the difference between clash detection and plan review?** Clash detection tests 3D model geometry for physical interferences and needs a coordinated model. Plan review works on the issued 2D drawings and specifications, and also catches conflicts with no geometry: schedule disagreements, broken references, rating mismatches, and spec conflicts. **What does QA/QC mean in construction documents?** Quality assurance is the system a firm uses to prevent document errors—standards, checklists, review gates. Quality control is the checking itself: reviewing the drawings and specifications for coordination, consistency, and compliance issues before they are issued. **Can AI do construction plan review?** AI plan review tools produce a first pass: they read the document set and surface possible issues with supporting evidence. Groundbook AI reviews drawings against specifications, checklists, and building-code PDFs you upload, from $50 per project. Professional verification and every final decision remain with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction. ### Put the vocabulary to work on your next set Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Drawing vs. Specification Conflicts: How to Find Them Before Bid Source: https://groundbook.ai/learn/drawings-vs-specifications-conflicts/ Why drawings and specs drift apart, the seven conflict types behind RFIs and change orders, what governs when they disagree, and a review routine for bid. ## Drawing vs. specification conflicts: how to find them before bid The drawings say one thing, the spec says another, and the contractor prices the cheaper one. Here is how the conflicts happen and how to catch them while they are still a redline. A drawing-versus-specification conflict is a case where the drawings and the project manual describe the same material, product, system, or requirement differently—a door scheduled at one rating and specified at another, a product named on a detail that the spec section does not include, a performance value that appears in two places with two numbers. They are a leading source of RFIs and change orders because bidders are entitled to price what the documents say, and the documents say two things. ### Why drawings and specifications drift apart Drawings and specifications are written by different people at different times with different tools. The drawings move with every coordination meeting; the specifications are often assembled from a master late in CDs and edited once. A product changes on a detail and the spec section keeps the previous manufacturer. A rating changes on a life-safety plan and the door schedule follows, but the hardware section does not. Neither author is wrong inside their own document; the conflict lives between them. ### Seven conflict types to look for - Rating and performance mismatches. Fire ratings, STC values, U-values, wind loads, or slip resistance stated differently on a schedule, a detail, and a spec section. - Product and manufacturer mismatches. A named product on the drawings that does not appear in the specification's product list, or a basis-of-design that contradicts a drawn dimension. - Missing sections. A material or system on the drawings with no specification section at all—common for late additions such as a canopy, a specialty ceiling, or a new equipment type. - Orphan sections. A specification section for work that is no longer in the drawings, which bidders may price anyway. - Quantity and extent conflicts. A spec that describes a finish "throughout" while the finish schedule limits it to certain rooms, or an allowance in Division 01 that does not match the drawn scope. - Submittal and testing requirements the drawings cannot meet. Mock-ups, tests, or certifications specified for assemblies that are detailed differently, or not detailed. - Division 01 versus drawing notes. Phasing, temporary facilities, hours of work, or closeout requirements in the general requirements that contradict notes on the cover sheet or site plan. ### What governs when they disagree Most construction contracts include an order-of-precedence clause that says which document controls in a conflict, and many say the more stringent requirement governs. That clause resolves the dispute; it does not remove the cost. A bidder who priced the less expensive reading will submit an RFI, and the answer becomes a change order or a credit. Confirm the precedence language in the project's own contract with the owner's counsel or contract administrator—this guide does not give legal advice—and treat every conflict you find as one that should be fixed before bid regardless of which document would win. ### A review routine before bid - Build the two lists. Every material, product, system, and equipment tag on the drawings; every specification section in the project manual. Match them both ways. Unmatched items on either side are findings. - Check the schedules against their sections. Door and hardware, finishes, equipment, plumbing fixtures, and lighting are where most rating and product conflicts sit. - Check the details against the sections. Notes on details often name products and performance values; compare each to the section it belongs to. - Read Division 01 with the cover sheet and site plan. Phasing, access, and temporary work conflicts are cheap to fix and expensive to argue. - Log every conflict with both references. Sheet and detail on one side, section and paragraph on the other. Route to the discipline that owns the drawing and the spec writer together. ### How Groundbook AI checks drawings against specifications Groundbook AI's drawing-to-specification check reads the complete set and the project manual together, connects each drawn material, product, and schedule entry to the specification sections that describe it, and returns possible conflicts—ratings, products, performance values, missing or orphan sections—with the sheet reference on one side and the section on the other. Findings are structured by severity and discipline for the team to verify. It is one of the checks on the contractor and architect pages, and it runs on the same upload as the coordination review. ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **Which governs, the drawings or the specifications?** It depends on the order-of-precedence clause in the project's contract, and many contracts require the more stringent requirement. Confirm with the contract documents; the safer course is to remove the conflict before bid. **Who should review drawings against specifications?** The architect and each engineering discipline for their own sections, with the specification writer, ideally at the CD milestone and again before bid. Contractors and estimators often run their own pass during bid review. **Can Groundbook AI compare drawings to specifications?** Yes. Upload the drawings and the project manual in the same project and include the drawing-to-specification check. Findings reference the sheet and the specification section so the team can resolve them. ### Check your drawings against the spec before bid Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Compare AI Plan Review Tools — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/compare/ AI plan review comparisons: the 2026 tool roundup, evaluation criteria, and Groundbook AI vs Bluebeam and ChatGPT. ## Compare AI plan review tools Roundups, evaluation criteria, and head-to-head comparisons for teams choosing an AI-assisted construction document review. Choosing AI plan review software comes down to the review you need: code-compliance screening, drawings-only scanning, or full-set QA/QC across drawings, specifications, checklists, and code sources. These guides compare the leading tools on facts published by each vendor, with the evaluation criteria to judge any of them—Groundbook AI included. ### Comparisons and buyer's guides ### Evaluate Groundbook AI on your own set Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Best AI Construction Drawing Review Software (2026 Comparison) Source: https://groundbook.ai/compare/best-ai-construction-drawing-review-software/ Groundbook AI, general AI assistants, Procore AI, and Bluebeam compared: focus, inputs, review workflow, published pricing, and turnaround. ## Best AI construction drawing review software in 2026 Four established tools compared by what they are built for, what they take as input, and how they fit into construction document review. Short answer: the right tool depends on the job. Use Groundbook AI for a systematic first-pass QA/QC review across drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. Use ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot for general questions, drafting, summarizing, and working with selected files. Use Procore AI for questions and agent workflows grounded in project data already managed in Procore. Use Bluebeam for the human-led PDF review and markup workflow, with AI assists available in Bluebeam Max. None replaces the architect, engineer, contractor, owner, or code official. ### Method and disclosure Groundbook AI publishes this guide, and Groundbook AI appears in it. To keep the comparison useful we stick to facts: descriptions of other tools come from official product materials as of August 2026, we avoid inventing per-review prices for products that use other pricing models, and we say plainly which jobs other tools are better suited to. Features change quickly in this category—verify details with each vendor before you buy. Every tool here is compared on the criteria from our evaluation guide: document coverage, cross-discipline reasoning, evidence and traceability, review instructions, output structure, setup and turnaround, pricing transparency, security, and professional accountability. ### Four established tools at a glance Tool Focus Inputs Published pricing Claimed turnaround Groundbook AI Full-set QA/QC: cross-discipline coordination, drawings vs specifications, checklist conformance, checks against code PDFs you upload Drawings, specifications, checklists, reports, and building-code PDFs; any number of pages From $50 per project, pay as you go ($1 per drawing page, $0.25 per reference page); exact price shown before payment Typically 24 hours General AI assistants ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot for questions, drafting, summarization, and analysis of selected files Prompts plus files or work data supported by each assistant, depending on plan and permissions Free, paid, or licensed plans; not priced per construction review Immediate conversational responses; no automated full-set review Procore AI Construction-platform AI for questions and agents across drawings, RFIs, submittals, photos, and project workflows Project data available in Procore, including drawings, RFIs, submittals, photos, and connected sources Available through Procore AI packages; not priced per construction review Interactive answers and workflow agents; proposed actions remain subject to human review Bluebeam Revu / Max Human-led PDF markup, Studio collaboration, and overlay comparison; Max adds AI Smart Review and Smart Overlay PDF drawing sets for Smart Review and Smart Overlay; Revu supports the broader PDF review workflow Per-seat subscription; Max required for Smart Review and Smart Overlay Human-paced; AI assists in Max ### Groundbook AI Best for: architects, engineers, contractors, developers, and owners who want a systematic first pass over a complete document set at a milestone—DD, CD, permit, bid, or preconstruction. Groundbook AI takes the whole project: drawings across disciplines plus the reference documents that define what the drawings must agree with—specifications, QA/QC and owner checklists, geotechnical reports, and building-code PDFs you upload. It connects them in an evidence-backed knowledge graph and returns findings with severity, discipline, impact, recommended action, and a link to the exact file, page, and drawing location. - The only tool in this list with published pay-as-you-go pricing and no sales call: reviews start at $50 and the exact price is shown before payment - Checks drawings against specifications and your own checklists and code sources, not only against other drawings - Data hosted on AWS in the United States; model providers contractually prohibited from training on customer project data - Consideration: results are typically ready in 24 hours—a thorough project review rather than an instant chat response See a real review: 42 potential findings across a six-story mixed-use set. ### ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot Best for: quick questions, drafting RFIs or meeting notes, summarizing selected documents, and using AI across everyday knowledge-work tools. ChatGPT can work with uploaded PDFs, documents, spreadsheets, and images. Microsoft Copilot works across Microsoft 365 apps such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Teams and, depending on the user's license and permissions, can ground responses in work content the user can access. Both are flexible, prompt-driven assistants rather than construction plan-review workflows. The user chooses the files, writes the questions, and decides what to compare; neither automatically turns a complete project set into a project-wide findings list located to exact drawing coordinates. See the detailed comparison with general AI assistants. ### Procore AI Best for: Procore customers who want construction-trained AI inside the project-management platform they already use. Procore AI can answer questions across project data, analyze drawings, RFIs, submittals, and photos, and run specialized agents that draft or update work for review. Its answers cite source files, existing Procore permissions carry through, and proposed actions are staged for a person to approve before anything changes. The center of gravity is the broader Procore project workflow—searching project knowledge and assisting tasks such as submittal review or RFI preparation—rather than an independent, pay-per-project QA/QC review of a complete drawing and specification set. ### Bluebeam Revu and Bluebeam Max Best for: the human-led review itself—markups, Studio sessions, standardized stamps and tool sets, and overlay comparison between versions. Bluebeam is where much of the industry already performs design review and QA/QC, and Bluebeam Max adds AI assists: Smart Review scans for design issues and scope gaps and Smart Overlay compares plan sets. It is a per-seat subscription and the review remains human-paced—AI supports the reviewer rather than producing a complete first-pass findings list. Many teams pair an automated first pass with Bluebeam for verification and markup; here is how that pairing works. All product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Groundbook AI is not affiliated with or endorsed by the other vendors listed. Details verified against official product materials in August 2026; confirm current features and pricing with each vendor. ### Professional judgment stays with your team Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and the evidence behind them. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, and authorities having jurisdiction retain every professional decision. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **What is the best AI construction drawing review software?** It depends on the work. Groundbook AI is purpose-built for full-set QA/QC across drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot are general assistants for prompt-driven questions and selected-file analysis. Procore AI works across project information and workflows inside Procore. Bluebeam is the established PDF markup and collaboration environment, with AI-assisted Smart Review and Smart Overlay in Max. **How much does AI drawing review software cost?** Groundbook AI publishes pay-as-you-go project pricing from $50, with the exact price shown before payment. ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot use free, paid, or licensed plans. Procore AI is available through Procore AI packages. Bluebeam uses per-seat subscriptions, and its Smart Review and Smart Overlay features require Max. **Can ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot review construction documents?** They can answer questions about supported files and help summarize, draft, or analyze selected content. They are general-purpose assistants, so a user must choose the files, write the prompts, and decide what to compare. Groundbook AI is built to run a systematic review across a complete project set and return structured, source-linked findings. **Do AI drawing review tools replace professional review?** No. AI can accelerate a first pass and surface possible issues for verification. Design, engineering, code, and construction decisions remain with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction. ### Run your set through the tool with published pricing Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review Software: 2026 Evaluation Guide — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/compare/ai-plan-review-software/ What AI plan review software does, what it should not claim, and nine criteria for choosing one: coverage, cross-discipline checks, evidence, pricing, security. ## How to evaluate AI plan review software A practical checklist for architects, engineers, contractors, owners, and plans examiners comparing AI-assisted review tools. AI plan review software reads construction drawings, specifications, and related project documents together and surfaces possible coordination, consistency, and compliance issues for professional verification. The strongest tools review the complete set rather than one sheet at a time, show the evidence behind every finding, accept your own checklists and code sources, and keep final decisions with the responsible professionals and authorities. ### What AI plan review software does “AI plan review” covers three different kinds of product. Knowing which one you are evaluating avoids most mismatched expectations. #### 1. Jurisdiction plan-check tools Used by building departments and third-party reviewers to screen permit submittals against adopted codes and completeness checklists. The output is organized around the permit process: intake, completeness, code sections, and comment letters. #### 2. Design and construction QA/QC tools Used by architects, engineers, contractors, developers, and owners to review their own sets before a milestone. The output is organized around the project: cross-discipline coordination, drawings against specifications, checklist conformance, and comparison against code sources the team uploads. Groundbook AI is in this category and also supports plans examiners who want a source-linked first pass. #### 3. General AI assistants ChatGPT, Copilot, and Claude can answer questions about documents you add to a conversation. They are useful, but they are not review systems. See the full comparison. ### What AI plan review software should not claim No software approves a permit, stamps a drawing, or replaces the engineer or architect of record. Treat these claims with caution: - “Automatic code compliance.” A tool can compare documents against code sources and flag possible questions. Compliance decisions belong to qualified professionals and the authority having jurisdiction. - “Catches every error.” Ask for the accuracy method behind the number, and expect findings to be framed as questions for verification. Groundbook AI reports 80% review accuracy as an internal product benchmark, not a per-project guarantee. - “No review needed.” The right outcome is a broader, faster first pass that your team verifies—not a shorter list your team trusts blindly. ### What to evaluate, and what to ask #### 01 · Document coverage Can the tool take the whole set—drawings, specifications, checklists, reports, and code PDFs—or only a few sheets at a time? - How many pages can one review include? - Which file types and disciplines are supported? #### 02 · Cross-discipline reasoning Does it connect sheets, schedules, details, and specifications across architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents? - Show me a finding that spans two disciplines. - How does it know which document is the reference and which is being checked? #### 03 · Evidence and traceability Every finding should point to the exact file, page, drawing location, and supporting sources. - Can I open the source behind each finding? - Is the evidence shown for both sides of a conflict? #### 04 · Review instructions Can you bring your own QA/QC checklist, owner standards, permit criteria, or building-code PDFs? - Can I upload my own checklist and code sources? - Which checks are built in? #### 05 · Output structure Findings should carry severity, discipline, impact, and a recommended action so the team can triage and assign them. - What does one finding contain? - Can findings be exported or shared with consultants? #### 06 · Setup and turnaround How long from upload to results, and is a sales call required to start? - Can I set up a project myself? - How long does a full-set review take? #### 07 · Pricing model Per project or per page is easy to try on one set; per seat commits the whole team before you have seen a result. - Is the exact price shown before I commit? - Are there minimums or subscriptions? #### 08 · Security and data handling Where is data hosted, how is it encrypted, who can access a project, and are model providers prohibited from training on it? - Do AI providers train on my project data? - How do I request deletion? #### 09 · Professional accountability The tool should position itself as assisting qualified review, and its findings should be written for verification. - Who makes the final call? - How are limitations communicated in the product? ### How Groundbook AI answers the nine criteria Criterion Groundbook AI Document coverage Drawing files (architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection) plus reference files (specifications, checklists, geotechnical reports, uploaded building-code PDFs). Projects can include any number of pages. Cross-discipline reasoning Files are classified, documents to check are separated from supporting references, and sheets, schedules, specifications, checklists, and code sources are connected in an evidence-backed project knowledge graph. Evidence and traceability Each finding links to the exact file, page, drawing location, and supporting sources. Review instructions Built-in construction review instructions plus your own QA/QC, owner, permit, or constructability checklists and uploaded code sources. Output structure Findings carry severity, discipline, impact, recommended action, and source references. Setup and turnaround Set up a review in about five minutes without a sales call. Results are typically ready in 24 hours. Pricing model Pay as you go from $50 per project; $1 per uploaded drawing page and $0.25 per uploaded reference page, with the exact price shown before payment. Prepaid credits save up to 15%; enterprise pricing for 500+ projects per year. Security and data handling Hosted on AWS in the United States; encrypted at rest and in transit; project access limited to the project owner and invited users; commercial model providers are contractually prohibited from training on Customer Project Data; SSO and MFA available on request. See the Security page. Professional accountability Groundbook AI assists professional review and does not replace the judgment of architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, or authorities having jurisdiction. ### Professional judgment stays with your team Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and the evidence behind them. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, and authorities having jurisdiction retain every professional decision. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **What is AI plan review software?** AI plan review software reads construction drawings, specifications, and related documents together and surfaces possible coordination, consistency, and compliance issues, with supporting evidence, for professional verification. **Does AI plan review software approve permits?** No. Tools can compare submittals or project documents against code sources and checklists and flag possible questions. Permit decisions remain with plans examiners and the authority having jurisdiction. **How is AI plan review different from clash detection?** Clash detection tests 3D model geometry for physical interferences. AI plan review works on the issued 2D documents—drawings, schedules, details, and specifications—and also catches inconsistencies, omissions, missing references, and specification conflicts that have no geometry to clash. **How much does AI plan review software cost?** Pricing models vary from per-seat subscriptions to per-project fees. Groundbook AI is pay as you go: project reviews start at $50, with $1 per uploaded drawing page and $0.25 per uploaded reference page, and the exact price is shown before payment. ### Evaluate Groundbook AI on your own set Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Groundbook AI vs UpCodes Plan Review: QA/QC vs Code Compliance Source: https://groundbook.ai/compare/groundbook-ai-vs-upcodes/ UpCodes checks drawings against its library of adopted codes. Groundbook AI reviews the whole set—coordination, specs, checklists, and code PDFs you upload. ## Groundbook AI vs UpCodes for plan review Two different centers of gravity: a code-compliance library that reviews drawings, and a full-set QA/QC review that includes the code sources you choose. Short answer: UpCodes is a code-research platform—a searchable library of locally adopted building codes—whose Plan Review feature checks project drawings against that library and flags plan-spec discrepancies, organized by severity with the governing code section linked. Groundbook AI is a full-set QA/QC review: it cross-checks architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents against each other, against specifications and checklists, and against building-code PDFs you upload, and returns findings linked to the exact file, page, and drawing location. If your question is "does this comply with our adopted code?", UpCodes' library is the draw. If your question is "what is wrong across this set?", that is what Groundbook AI was built for. Some teams use both. ### Where each tool's center of gravity sits Criterion UpCodes Plan Review Groundbook AI Built for Code compliance: checking drawings against locally adopted building codes Full-set QA/QC: coordination, consistency, checklist conformance, and code checks in one review Code sources UpCodes' searchable library of locally adopted codes Building-code PDFs you upload, checked alongside your specifications and checklists Cross-discipline coordination Not the product's focus Architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents cross-checked against each other Project input Project drawings, reviewed against the code library; plan-spec discrepancies flagged Complete set: drawings, specifications, checklists, reports, and code PDFs, with any number of pages Output Issues by severity and category, linked to the drawing page and governing code section Findings with severity, discipline, impact, recommended action, and links to the exact file, page, and drawing location Review instructions The code library drives the review Built-in construction review instructions plus your own QA/QC, owner, permit, or constructability checklists Pricing Not published for Plan Review as of August 2026 Pay as you go from $50 per project; exact price shown before payment Getting started Part of the UpCodes platform Set up a review in about five minutes without a sales call; results typically in 24 hours ### When UpCodes is the right tool UpCodes earned its place in AEC workflows as the searchable code library, and the Plan Review feature extends that strength: - Researching which codes and amendments a jurisdiction has adopted - A code-first screen of drawings before permit submittal, with the governing section behind each issue - Teams that already work inside the UpCodes platform every day If code research is the daily job and compliance screening is the review you need, the depth of the library is hard to beat. ### When you need Groundbook AI Most costly drawing problems are not code violations. They are two disciplines describing the same building differently: a slab elevation that disagrees with the mechanical plan, a schedule that conflicts with a plan callout, a note referencing a sheet that does not exist, a spec section the drawings quietly contradict. Reach for Groundbook AI when: - A milestone review at DD, CD, permit, bid, or preconstruction needs a first pass over every sheet - Drawings must agree with specifications, schedules, and your firm's or owner's checklists—not only with the code - You want code checks run against the specific code PDFs you consider governing, uploaded as part of the set - The deliverable is a findings list your team can verify, assign, and close See what a full-set review surfaced on a mixed-use residential project —most of the 42 potential findings were coordination and consistency issues no code library would flag. UpCodes is a trademark of UpCodes, Inc. Groundbook AI is not affiliated with or endorsed by UpCodes. Details verified against public materials in August 2026; confirm current features and pricing with each vendor. ### Professional judgment stays with your team Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and the evidence behind them. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, and authorities having jurisdiction retain every professional decision. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **Is Groundbook AI a replacement for UpCodes?** Not for code research. UpCodes' library of locally adopted codes is a research tool many teams keep. Groundbook AI replaces the manual first pass of QA/QC review: coordination, consistency, checklist conformance, and code checks against sources you upload. Some teams use both. **Does Groundbook AI check building codes?** Yes—against building-code PDFs you upload as reference documents, so the review runs against the specific editions and amendments you consider governing, and every possible compliance finding links to the source. **Which tool finds coordination errors between disciplines?** Cross-discipline coordination is Groundbook AI's core: architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents are cross-checked against each other in one review. UpCodes Plan Review is organized around code compliance. **How much do the two tools cost?** Groundbook AI publishes pay-as-you-go pricing: reviews start at $50 per project, $1 per uploaded drawing page and $0.25 per reference page, with the exact price shown before payment. UpCodes did not publish Plan Review pricing as of August 2026. ### Review the whole set, not just the code Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Groundbook AI vs Bluebeam for Design Review QA/QC Source: https://groundbook.ai/compare/groundbook-ai-vs-bluebeam/ Bluebeam is where teams perform design review; Groundbook AI performs the first pass itself. How the two fit together for construction QA/QC. ## Groundbook AI vs Bluebeam for design review QA/QC One is the environment where your team reviews. The other does the first review pass for you. Most teams that try both keep both. Short answer: Bluebeam Revu is the industry-standard environment for human-led design review—PDF markup, Studio collaboration, standardized stamps and tool sets, and overlay comparison—and Bluebeam Max adds AI assists such as Smart Review and Smart Overlay. Groundbook AI does a different job: it performs the automated first pass over the complete document set—drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code PDFs—and returns structured findings with evidence before your reviewers open a single sheet. They are complementary: run the set through Groundbook AI, then verify and mark up the findings wherever your team already works, Bluebeam included. ### Different jobs in the same workflow Criterion Bluebeam Revu / Max Groundbook AI Built for The review environment: markup, collaboration, measurement, document control The review itself: an automated first pass over the complete set Who does the review Your team, sheet by sheet; Max's Smart Review and Smart Overlay assist the reviewer Groundbook AI produces the findings list; your team verifies and decides Project input PDFs and 2D/3D files from Revit, AutoCAD, Navisworks; documents you open and mark up Drawings, specifications, checklists, reports, and building-code PDFs uploaded as one project Cross-discipline checks Overlay compare shows visual differences; reviewers spot the conflicts Sheets, schedules, specifications, and code sources cross-checked automatically, with findings located to file, page, and drawing location Output Markups, Studio session records, exportable review reports Findings with severity, discipline, impact, recommended action, and linked evidence Time cost Reviewer hours scale with sheet count Upload in about five minutes; results typically ready in 24 hours Pricing Per-seat subscription Pay as you go from $50 per project; exact price shown before payment Best together Verify, mark up, assign, and resolve findings Generate the first-pass findings your reviewers start from ### What Bluebeam does that Groundbook AI does not Bluebeam is the environment much of the industry standardized on, and nothing about an automated first pass changes that: - Live and asynchronous markup with Studio Sessions across firms - Standardized tool sets, stamps, and symbols that keep every discipline's QA/QC consistent - Overlay and compare between design iterations, measurement, and takeoff - The audit trail of who commented, decided, and resolved what If the question is “where should our people review documents together?”, that answer does not change. ### What Groundbook AI adds The expensive part of QA/QC is not marking up issues—it is finding them. A 60-page multi-discipline set takes a senior reviewer the better part of a day for a first pass, and cross-references between consultants are where things slip. Groundbook AI does that first pass systematically: - Every sheet checked against every other sheet, the specifications, your checklists, and uploaded code sources - Findings arrive structured—severity, discipline, impact, recommended action—with the evidence linked - Your reviewers spend their hours verifying and deciding, not hunting - Pay per project, so a single milestone review needs no new seats or subscriptions On one mixed-use residential set, the first pass surfaced 42 potential findings including a shear-wall schedule conflict with an unclear governing revision and a floor-elevation disagreement between structural and mechanical. Bluebeam, Revu, and Bluebeam Studio are trademarks of Bluebeam, Inc. Groundbook AI is not affiliated with or endorsed by Bluebeam. Details verified against public materials in August 2026; confirm current features and pricing with each vendor. ### Professional judgment stays with your team Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and the evidence behind them. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, and authorities having jurisdiction retain every professional decision. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **Is Groundbook AI a Bluebeam replacement?** No. Bluebeam is the environment where teams mark up, collaborate, and control documents. Groundbook AI performs the automated first review pass over the set. Teams typically run Groundbook AI first, then verify and mark up findings in the environment they already use. **Does Bluebeam's AI do the same thing as Groundbook AI?** Bluebeam Max's Smart Review scans for design issues and scope gaps and Smart Overlay compares plan sets—assists inside a human-paced review. Groundbook AI reviews the complete set including specifications, checklists, and uploaded code PDFs, and returns a structured findings list with linked evidence as the starting point. **Can I use Groundbook AI findings in Bluebeam?** Findings link to the exact file, page, and drawing location, so reviewers can open the same sheet in their markup tool and verify each item. Findings can be shared with consultants from Groundbook AI directly. **What does each tool cost?** Bluebeam is licensed per seat by subscription. Groundbook AI is pay as you go: reviews start at $50 per project, $1 per uploaded drawing page and $0.25 per reference page, with the exact price shown before payment. ### Add the first pass your review environment is missing Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Groundbook AI vs ChatGPT for Construction Plan Review Source: https://groundbook.ai/compare/groundbook-ai-vs-chatgpt-for-plan-review/ How Groundbook AI's purpose-built plan review compares with ChatGPT, Copilot, and Claude: document inputs, cross-file checks, traceable evidence, and pricing. ## Groundbook AI vs ChatGPT for plan review Both use AI. Only one was built to review a complete construction document set and hand your team traceable findings. Short answer: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude are general-purpose AI assistants that answer questions about content you add to a conversation. Groundbook AI is a purpose-built construction document review system. It takes a complete project set, builds an evidence-backed knowledge graph across drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources, applies construction-specific review instructions, and returns structured findings linked to the exact file, page, and drawing location. Use a general assistant for quick questions and drafting; use Groundbook AI when you need a systematic first pass over the whole set. ### What changes when the tool is built for plan review Criterion General AI assistant (ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude) Groundbook AI Built for General questions, writing, and analysis of content you provide Construction QA/QC and plan review across the documents that define a building Project input Files or text added to a single conversation A complete project set: drawings, specifications, checklists, reports, and uploaded building-code PDFs, with any number of pages Document understanding Reads what you paste or upload; you decide what to compare and when Classifies every file, separates documents to check from supporting references, and connects sheets, schedules, specifications, checklists, and code sources in a project knowledge graph Cross-discipline checks Depends on how you prompt; each comparison is a new request Cross-checks architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents against each other, against specifications, and against checklists and code sources in one review Output Conversational text; structure depends on your prompt Structured findings with severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action Evidence Answers refer back to the conversation; drawing locations are not identified by default Every finding links to the exact file, page, drawing location, and supporting sources for qualified review Review instructions Written by you, each time Built-in construction review instructions plus your own QA/QC, owner, permit, or constructability checklists Turnaround Immediate replies, one question at a time Setup in about five minutes without a sales call; results for the complete set typically ready in 24 hours Pricing Free and subscription plans, per user Pay as you go; project reviews start at $50 and the exact price is shown before payment Project data Depends on the assistant's plan and settings Customer data hosted on AWS in the United States and encrypted at rest and in transit; commercial model providers used to process requests are contractually prohibited from training on Customer Project Data Professional judgment Stays with you Stays with you. Groundbook AI assists review and does not replace architects, engineers, contractors, owners, or code officials ### When a general AI assistant is the right tool General assistants are excellent at fast, open-ended work, and many project teams keep one open all day: - Quick questions about terminology, a code concept, or a specification section you paste in - Drafting RFIs, meeting notes, transmittals, or a first version of a change narrative - Summarizing a single document or comparing two short excerpts - Brainstorming options before a coordination meeting Groundbook AI may use leading AI models as components. The difference is not the model; it is the review workflow, the project context, and the traceable evidence that a general chat does not provide. ### When you need Groundbook AI Reach for a purpose-built review when the question is “what is wrong across this set?” rather than “what does this paragraph mean?”: - A milestone review at DD, CD, permit, bid, or preconstruction, where every sheet needs a first pass - Cross-discipline coordination between architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents - Drawings checked against specifications, schedules, and details for conflicting materials, ratings, or dimensions - Conformance to a firm, owner, permit, or constructability checklist - Comparison against uploaded building-code sources, with the source shown behind every possible issue - A findings list your team can verify, assign, and close—not a chat transcript Most teams use both: a general assistant for the conversation, Groundbook AI for the review. See what a review surfaced on a mixed-use residential set, or check project pricing. ### Professional judgment stays with your team Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and the evidence behind them. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, code officials, and authorities having jurisdiction retain every professional decision. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Related pages ### Frequently asked questions **Does Groundbook AI use ChatGPT or other AI models?** Groundbook AI may use leading AI models as components. The product is the construction-specific review workflow, the project knowledge graph, and the traceable evidence behind each finding, not a blank chat. **Can ChatGPT review a full construction drawing set?** General assistants work from files added to a conversation and answer one question at a time. They do not build a project-wide document graph or return findings located to a specific file, page, and drawing location by default. Groundbook AI was built for that job. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI accelerates the first review pass and organizes possible issues with their evidence. Final design, engineering, code, and construction decisions remain with the responsible professionals and authorities. **How much does a Groundbook AI review cost?** Project reviews start at $50, pay as you go. Drawing files cost $1 per uploaded page and reference files $0.25 per uploaded page, with additional cost for cross-file conflict and code-compliance checks based on scope. The exact price is shown before payment. ### Run the next set through a purpose-built review Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # Pricing — Groundbook AI Construction Plan Review Source: https://groundbook.ai/pricing/ Pay-as-you-go AI plan review with project tiers, discounted prepaid credits, and enterprise volume pricing. ## Pay as you go Choose pay as you go, prepaid credits with up to 15% off, or enterprise volume pricing. ### Typical review tiers - Drawing and reference file support - Conflict and code checks available - Traceable findings with source links - Dedicated customer support - High-volume discounts - Enterprise-grade security - SSO and MFA - Custom integrations available * Prices shown are rough estimates based on project size. Your exact price will be shown after you finish setting up your project in the app. Groundbook AI supports any number of drawing and reference pages. ### How your quote is calculated Document pages plus any conflict and code-compliance checks you select. Architectural, structural, civil, MEP, and other drawing sheets. Specifications, reports, checklists, and other review references. #### Cross-file conflict checks Coordination across disciplines, drawings, specifications, and checklists. #### Code compliance checks Review against the building-code sources selected for your project. ### Choose how you pay #### Pay as you go Pay for one review at a time. No subscription required. #### Prepaid credits Buy $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, or $30,000 in credits in advance for up to 15% off. Use them across projects. #### Enterprise Enterprise-grade security with SSO and MFA, plus volume pricing, dedicated customer support, and custom integrations tailored to your organization. --- # About Groundbook AI — Built by AI and AEC Experts Source: https://groundbook.ai/about/ Meet the AI engineers, structural engineers, and architects behind Groundbook AI, with decades of experience across the built environment and technology. ## We know construction documents. We build AI systems Groundbook AI is built by AI engineers, structural engineers, and architects who understand both the complexity of a coordinated drawing set and the rigor required of production software. ### One team, two kinds of expertise Our team collectively brings decades of experience across architecture, structural engineering, construction workflows, software, and artificial intelligence. #### Built environment Our architects and structural engineers bring experience from leading design practices, including Gensler and SOM. #### Technology Our engineers bring technology experience from companies including Google and Airbnb. #### Education Team academic backgrounds include Carnegie Mellon University, University of Michigan, and University of Washington. ### Why we built Groundbook Building documents are interconnected. A useful review has to follow relationships across drawings, schedules, specifications, checklists, and code sources—and show the evidence behind every possible issue. Groundbook brings construction context and AI engineering together in one review workflow, while keeping final judgment with the professionals responsible for the work. --- # Groundbook AI Press Kit Source: https://groundbook.ai/press/ Boilerplate, fact sheet, and brand assets for writing about Groundbook AI, the pay-as-you-go AI construction plan review by Matter0, Inc. ## Writing about Groundbook AI Everything a writer, analyst, or roundup author needs: approved boilerplate, a verifiable fact sheet, brand assets, and a real anonymized case study to draw from. Groundbook AI is the pay-as-you-go AI construction plan review that checks drawings against specifications, checklists, and the building-code PDFs you upload—with the exact price shown before payment. It is built by Matter0, Inc. in San Francisco and assists professional review; it does not replace architects, engineers, contractors, or code officials. ### Boilerplate One line: Groundbook AI is a pay-as-you-go AI plan review that cross-checks a complete construction document set—drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded building codes—and returns findings linked to the exact file, page, and drawing location. Short paragraph: Groundbook AI, built by Matter0, Inc., performs the first review pass over a complete construction document set. Teams upload drawings across disciplines together with the reference documents that define what the drawings must agree with—specifications, QA/QC and owner checklists, geotechnical reports, and building-code PDFs—and the system connects them in an evidence-backed knowledge graph. Findings come back typically within 24 hours with severity, discipline, impact, recommended action, and a link to the exact file, page, and drawing location, for verification by the responsible professionals. Reviews start at $50 per project with the exact price shown before payment, and setup takes about five minutes without a sales call. Company description: Groundbook AI is pre-construction QA/QC. Before a project breaks ground, teams check it with Groundbook and go to the field with documents they trust. That is the company today. The longer arc is physical AI: buildings are the largest things people make, and AI that truly understands how they are designed and built is the first step toward AI that can help design, check, and ultimately build in the physical world. Groundbook AI is made by Matter0, Inc. in San Francisco. ### Fact sheet Fact Detail Product Groundbook AI — AI construction document review (plan review / QA/QC) Company Matter0, Inc., San Francisco, California Who it serves Architects, structural and MEP engineers, civil engineers, contractors, developers, owners, and plans examiners Inputs Drawing files across disciplines plus reference files: specifications, checklists, reports, and uploaded building-code PDFs; any number of pages Output Findings with severity, discipline, impact, recommended action, and evidence linked to the exact file, page, and drawing location Pricing Pay as you go from $50 per project; $1 per uploaded drawing page, $0.25 per reference page; exact price shown before payment. Prepaid credits save up to 15% Turnaround Results typically ready in 24 hours; setup in about five minutes, no sales call Published example Anonymized case study: 42 potential findings across about 60 pages of a six-story mixed-use residential set (13 high, 27 medium, 2 low) Security Hosted on AWS in the United States; encrypted at rest and in transit; model providers contractually prohibited from training on customer project data. Details Positioning Assists professional review; does not approve permits, stamp drawings, or replace the judgment of qualified professionals or the authority having jurisdiction ### Brand - Logo (PNG, 512×512) · Icon (SVG) - Name: always “Groundbook AI” (one word, capital G and AI)—not Groundbook.ai in prose, and not to be confused with Groundplan or GroundPound.ai, which are unrelated products - Interface colors: action green #05CD8F and text green #276A60. The logo keeps its original light-green and deep-green artwork. - Profiles: LinkedIn · X - Product facts for AI systems: llms.txt · llms-full.txt For interviews, screenshots, review data, or evaluation access for a story or comparison article, email support@groundbook.ai —we respond within one business day and can provide anonymized review examples beyond the published case study. ### Evaluating Groundbook AI for a comparison article? Run a real set through it—reviews start at $50—or book time and we will walk you through a finished review. --- # Contact Groundbook AI — Support, Sales, and Office Source: https://groundbook.ai/contact/ Contact Groundbook AI for product support, project questions, demos, and enterprise plan review. Find support hours and our San Francisco office. ## Contact Groundbook AI Send us a message about product support, a project, pricing, or an enterprise workflow. We’ll route it to the right person on our team. ### Send us a message Tell us what you need and include your account email or project name when relevant. ### Support We monitor messages every day and reply as quickly as we can during support hours. **Weekdays 10 AM–6 PM PT** We typically reply within 2 hours during support hours. **Weekends 12 PM–5 PM PT** We typically reply within 5 hours during support hours. ### Prefer a call? Book 30 minutes to discuss a project, drawing comparison, prepaid credits, or a larger plan-review workflow. ### Office Our team is based in San Francisco and Seattle. --- # AI Plan Review for Architects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/for/architects/ Groundbook AI helps architects cross-check drawings, specs, consultant sets, checklists, and building codes before coordination issues become RFIs or rework. ## Review the full set before redlines become RFIs Cross-check drawings, specifications, consultant sets, checklists, and building codes in one review. Groundbook AI helps your team find coordination gaps while they are still design problems—not field problems. Groundbook AI for architects is an AI plan review that cross-checks the architectural set against consultant drawings, specifications, schedules, checklists, and uploaded building-code sources in one pass. It flags possible coordination gaps, inconsistencies, and compliance questions with the exact sheet and location, so the architect of record can resolve them before they become RFIs or rework. ### More coverage without another round of manual comparison Architectural sets carry thousands of relationships. Groundbook AI gives project teams a systematic first pass across them. #### Keep design intent aligned Compare plans, schedules, details, elevations, and specifications for requirements that drift as the design develops. #### Review consultant interfaces Surface possible clashes and omissions where architectural, structural, MEP, civil, and fire-protection documents meet. #### Reduce late surprises Find questions before permit, bid, or construction—when the team still has time to resolve them cleanly. ### A review built around how architects coordinate a set Choose the documents and checks that match the milestone. Groundbook AI returns structured, source-linked findings for your team to verify. #### Architectural set consistency Compare room, door, finish, wall, equipment, key-note, and detail information across related sheets and schedules. #### Drawings against specifications Look for mismatched materials, ratings, products, dimensions, and performance requirements between the set and project manual. #### Cross-discipline coordination Follow interfaces with structure, MEP, fire protection, civil, landscape, and interiors across the complete project set. #### Checklist and code-source review Apply your QA/QC, owner, permit, accessibility, or code checklist and compare against uploaded source documents. ### Explain what changed from DD to CD—with sources Align two issued PDF sets, organize added, removed, and revised information, and draft a concise change narrative with sheet references for the architect and engineers to verify before sharing with contractors. - Compare milestone sets Trace changes between SD, Design Development, Construction Documents, permit, addendum, and bulletin issues. - Draft the narrative Organize verified changes by discipline, sheet, location, and project implication. - Prepare the contractor handoff Call attention to coordination and constructability changes without making estimating claims. ### Fit a broader check into the way your team already works #### Upload the milestone set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, and code PDFs for the review. #### Select the checks Choose cross-file coordination, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and code-source comparisons. #### Review with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, verify them, and route the right items for action. ### Professional judgment stays with your team Groundbook AI accelerates the first pass and organizes possible issues. It does not stamp, seal, approve, or replace architectural or engineering review. - Evidence linked to each finding - Structured severity, discipline, impact, and action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### See how adjacent teams use Groundbook AI ### What architecture teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review consultant drawings with the architectural set?** Yes. Upload architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, civil, landscape, interiors, and other project documents together so the review can follow relationships across disciplines. **Can we use our own QA/QC checklist?** Yes. Upload a firm, owner, permit, or project-specific checklist and include checklist conformance in the review scope. **Does Groundbook AI replace the architect’s review?** No. Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and their evidence for qualified review. The architect and responsible professionals retain all design and professional decisions. **Can Groundbook AI create a DD-to-CD change narrative?** Yes. DD-to-CD change narratives are available to beta users upon request, with source-linked changes for the architect and engineers to verify. Explore drawing comparison. ### Give your next set a broader first pass Try the current review workflow, or show us how your team prepares milestone change narratives. --- # AI Plan Review for Structural Engineers — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/for/structural-engineers/ Groundbook AI helps structural engineers cross-check plans, details, schedules, specifications, and other disciplines for coordination gaps before construction. ## Catch coordination gaps before they reach the field Review structural plans, details, schedules, specifications, and adjacent disciplines together. Groundbook AI surfaces possible inconsistencies and interface risks with source evidence your engineers can verify. Groundbook AI for structural engineers is an AI plan review that cross-checks plans, sections, details, schedules, and general notes against the architectural and MEP sets, specifications, and uploaded code sources. It surfaces possible coordination gaps and inconsistencies with the exact sheet and location, so the engineer of record can verify them before fabrication or construction. ### Extend the first pass beyond a single calculation or sheet Groundbook AI follows how structural information repeats and connects across the complete document set. #### Find discipline conflicts Surface openings, penetrations, clearances, grids, levels, and load-bearing elements that may not align across consultant sets. #### Reconcile repeated information Compare plans, framing diagrams, details, schedules, general notes, and specifications for possible contradictions. #### Move questions upstream Identify coordination questions before fabrication, procurement, or installation makes the answer more expensive. ### Connections between structural intent and the rest of the project Upload the milestone set once, choose the review scope, and receive structured findings with source references. #### Structural set consistency Compare grids, levels, member designations, sizes, openings, notes, schedules, and related details across structural sheets. #### Architectural and MEP coordination Look for possible conflicts involving shafts, stairs, walls, ceilings, equipment, ducts, piping, and structural framing. #### Drawings against specifications Compare material, strength, connection, testing, and execution requirements between structural drawings and specifications. #### Firm and project checklists Run structural QA/QC, owner, peer-review, permit, or constructability checklists across the uploaded set. ### Trace structural changes between issued sets Align two PDF drawing sets, organize changes to grids, framing, openings, details, schedules, and notes, and draft a source-linked milestone narrative for the structural engineer to verify before contractor handoff. - Compare DD, CD, permit, and bulletin sets Organize added, removed, and revised structural information by sheet and location. - Surface coordination implications Flag changed openings, framing, levels, and interfaces that deserve multidisciplinary review. - Keep engineering judgment in control Prepare a draft narrative and evidence—not calculations or final conclusions. ### Review more relationships without changing authoring tools #### Upload project documents Add structural drawings, specifications, architectural and MEP sets, checklists, and reference files. #### Scope the review Choose cross-discipline, internal consistency, specification, checklist, or uploaded code-source checks. #### Verify the findings Inspect the cited evidence, apply engineering judgment, and route confirmed issues into your workflow. ### The engineer of record remains in control Groundbook AI supports structural review by organizing possible issues and evidence. It does not perform delegated design, stamp documents, or replace required calculations and engineering judgment. - Source-linked findings, not unsupported answers - Structured by severity, discipline, impact, and action - Any project size, type, location, or major language ### Continue across adjacent disciplines ### What structural teams ask **Does Groundbook AI perform structural calculations?** Groundbook AI focuses on construction-document coordination, consistency, checklist conformance, and comparison with uploaded references. It does not replace structural analysis, calculations, or the engineer of record. **Can it compare structural drawings with architectural and MEP sets?** Yes. Those cross-discipline relationships are central to the review, including possible conflicts involving framing, openings, penetrations, shafts, grids, levels, and equipment. **Can we include our firm’s QA/QC checklist?** Yes. Upload your checklist with the project documents and include checklist conformance in the review scope. ### Find the coordination question before the field does Try the current workflow, or talk with us about source-linked milestone comparisons. --- # AI Plan Review for MEP Engineers — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/for/mep-engineers/ Groundbook AI helps MEP engineers review system coordination, equipment requirements, clearances, schedules, specifications, and cross-discipline conflicts. ## Coordinate systems before the ceiling fills up Cross-check mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire-protection documents with architecture, structure, specifications, schedules, and code sources. Find possible conflicts while there is still room to solve them. Groundbook AI for MEP engineers is an AI plan review that checks mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire-protection documents against each other, the architectural and structural sets, equipment schedules, specifications, and uploaded code sources. It flags possible routing conflicts, clearance issues, and schedule mismatches with the exact sheet and location for the engineer to verify. ### More than clash detection. Document coordination with context Groundbook AI looks at the requirements around a system—not only whether two lines overlap. #### Protect routes and clearances Surface possible conflicts between distribution, equipment, structure, ceilings, walls, access zones, and other building systems. #### Align plans, schedules, and specs Find equipment, capacity, rating, control, and material information that may disagree across the document set. #### Catch missing coordination Review connections between disciplines where power, controls, drainage, ventilation, fire protection, and architectural intent meet. ### A connected review for connected building systems Choose a single discipline or upload the complete consultant set for broader coordination coverage. #### System routing and clearance Review possible conflicts among ducts, pipes, equipment, electrical distribution, access zones, ceilings, walls, and structure. #### Plans, schedules, and diagrams Compare equipment tags, capacities, ratings, quantities, connections, and design information where it repeats across sheets. #### Drawings against specifications Look for mismatched equipment, materials, controls, testing, performance, and installation requirements. #### Checklist and code-source review Apply discipline QA/QC, owner, permit, commissioning, or code checklists against the uploaded project documents. ### Trace system changes from one issue to the next Organize changes to equipment, routes, capacities, connections, controls, clearances, schedules, and notes, then draft a source-linked milestone narrative for the responsible engineers to verify. - Compare design milestones Review DD, CD, permit, addendum, and bulletin drawing versions. - Focus on constructability Call attention to revised routes, access, service zones, and coordination interfaces. - Prepare a verified handoff Create a draft change narrative with before-and-after sources, not an engineering conclusion. ### One upload. A coordinated first pass #### Add the system documents Upload MEP and fire-protection drawings, specifications, architecture, structure, checklists, and references. #### Choose review relationships Select the disciplines, document comparisons, checklists, and uploaded code sources to include. #### Resolve with source context Verify findings against the cited pages and route confirmed items to the appropriate engineer or consultant. ### Broader coverage. The same professional accountability Groundbook AI supports the first review pass and organizes possible issues. Responsible engineers make all final design, code, and coordination decisions. - Exact file, page, location, and supporting sources - Structured severity, discipline, impact, and action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Continue across adjacent teams ### What MEP teams ask **Which MEP disciplines can Groundbook AI review?** Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire-protection, controls, and related project documents can be included, along with architectural, structural, civil, specification, checklist, and code-reference files. **Is this the same as model clash detection?** No. Groundbook AI reviews construction documents and their requirements, including plans, schedules, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. It can surface spatial coordination questions, but the review is broader than geometric model clashes. **Does it replace engineering review or commissioning?** No. It assists qualified teams with a systematic first pass. Engineering design, code decisions, commissioning, and final verification remain with the responsible professionals. ### Find the conflict while it is still on the page See an anonymized mixed-use residential review, try the current workflow, or talk with us about source-linked drawing comparisons. --- # AI Plan Review for Contractors — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/for/contractors/ Groundbook AI helps contractors find constructability, coordination, scope, and specification issues before they become RFIs, change orders, or rework. ## Find the issue in the plans—not in the field Run a broader constructability and coordination review before bid, buyout, or mobilization. Groundbook AI cross-checks the project set so your team can raise better questions before schedule and cost are on the line. Groundbook AI for contractors is an AI plan review that reads the complete bid or construction set—drawings, specifications, addenda, and checklists—and surfaces possible constructability, coordination, and scope issues with the exact sheet and location. Teams use it before bid, buyout, or mobilization to raise questions while they are still cheap to answer. ### A systematic set review when the team cannot read every relationship twice Groundbook AI helps preconstruction and operations teams investigate possible issues across disciplines and requirements. #### See installation constraints Surface possible conflicts involving routing, access, clearances, openings, sequencing, and space for the work. #### Reconcile drawings and specs Find materials, ratings, equipment, quantities, and responsibilities that may not align across the contract documents. #### Move decisions forward Give teams more time to clarify potential issues before procurement, fabrication, or field installation. ### Review the documents the way the building must come together Upload the bid or construction set and focus the review on the risks that matter to your team and trade partners. #### Cross-discipline constructability Compare architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, and civil documents for possible physical and sequencing conflicts. #### Drawing-to-spec consistency Review materials, products, ratings, performance, testing, and installation requirements across drawings and specifications. #### Schedules, details, and notes Look for information that changes between plans, schedules, sections, details, key notes, and general requirements. #### Your constructability checklist Run company, owner, lender, safety, turnover, or project-specific checklists across the complete document set. ### Review what changed between two PDF drawing sets Align a previous and current issue, organize meaningful revisions, and focus the review on constructability changes involving access, clearance, routing, sequencing, scope, and trade coordination. Rather than promising a cost calculation, the beta workflow flags changes that deserve estimator or procurement review. - Compare issued sets Review milestone, permit, bid, addendum, bulletin, or construction drawing versions. - Prioritize constructability Separate visual revisions from changes that may affect how the work is coordinated or installed. - Hand off possible cost impacts Give estimators a focused list to validate without presenting an automated estimate. ### Useful before bid. Valuable before the work starts #### Upload the contract set Add drawings, specifications, addenda, checklists, and reference documents from the project team. #### Choose risk checks Select coordination, constructability, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons. #### Route confirmed questions Verify the cited evidence and turn confirmed findings into RFIs, coordination items, or preconstruction actions. ### Use the findings to ask—not assume Groundbook AI helps contractors surface possible issues with supporting evidence. Final design, engineering, means and methods, code, safety, and construction decisions remain with the responsible parties. - Evidence for focused conversations with design teams - Findings organized by severity, discipline, and impact - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### See the workflow from every side ### What contractors ask **Can we use Groundbook AI during estimating and preconstruction?** Yes. Teams can review bid, permit, or construction documents for possible coordination, scope, specification, checklist, and constructability issues before major commitments are made. **Does Groundbook AI create RFIs automatically?** Groundbook AI returns structured, source-linked findings. Your team should verify each item and decide whether it warrants an RFI, coordination item, estimate qualification, or other action. **Can specialty contractors review only their scope?** Yes. The uploaded documents and selected checks define the scope. A specialty contractor can focus on a discipline while still including adjacent documents needed for coordination context. **Can Groundbook AI compare two versions of a drawing set?** Yes. Drawing version comparison is available to beta users upon request, with a focus on constructability changes and estimator handoff. Explore drawing comparison or book a demo to discuss beta access. ### Start preconstruction with fewer unknowns Try the current review workflow, or talk with us about drawing version comparison. --- # AI Plan Review for Real Estate Developers — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/for/developers/ Groundbook AI helps real estate developers find design coordination, requirement, and constructability risks before they threaten project budget or schedule. ## Protect the pro forma from problems hidden in the plans Add an evidence-backed review across design documents, specifications, owner requirements, and code sources. Groundbook AI helps development teams surface risks while there is still time to protect scope, budget, and schedule. Groundbook AI for real estate developers is an AI plan review that checks a project's drawings and specifications against the program, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, surfacing possible design coordination and requirement gaps with the exact sheet and location. It gives development teams an independent first pass before design decisions harden into cost. ### See more of the risk carried inside the document set Groundbook AI gives development teams a repeatable review across the documents that define scope and quality. #### Keep requirements visible Check owner criteria, program needs, design documents, schedules, and specifications for possible gaps or contradictions. #### Find cost questions earlier Surface design and specification mismatches that may affect materials, equipment, allowances, procurement, or change exposure. #### Reduce downstream disruption Identify coordination and constructability questions before they threaten permit, buyout, fabrication, or field progress. ### Project-wide coverage without waiting for a late-stage surprise Use a standard owner checklist across the portfolio or tailor the review to a project’s priorities and stage. #### Owner and program requirements Run development criteria, brand standards, lender requirements, program checklists, or project goals across the design set. #### Design coordination Compare architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, civil, landscape, and interiors documents for possible conflicts. #### Drawings against specifications Find materials, products, ratings, dimensions, equipment, and performance requirements that may not align. #### Uploaded code-source review Compare project documents with selected building-code PDFs and flag items that need a qualified reviewer’s attention. ### Add review coverage without another consultant kickoff #### Upload a milestone package Add the design set, specifications, development criteria, checklists, and relevant reference documents. #### Select project priorities Choose design coordination, requirement, specification, checklist, constructability, or code-source checks. #### Review with the delivery team Share source-linked findings with the architect, engineers, contractor, and owner representatives for verification. ### Bring the evidence to the people responsible for the answer Groundbook AI organizes possible issues so development teams can focus conversations. It does not replace the architect, engineer, contractor, code official, or owner representative. - Source-linked findings for focused team review - Portfolio-ready checklists and project-specific checks - Pay-as-you-go and enterprise volume options ### See the project from every seat ### What development teams ask **At which project stages can developers use Groundbook AI?** Groundbook AI can review any uploaded document set. Teams can use it at design milestones, before permit or bid, during preconstruction, or when a focused project question needs broader document context. **Can we use the same owner checklist across multiple projects?** Yes. A repeatable owner, brand, program, lender, or delivery checklist can be uploaded and applied to each project’s documents. **Does Groundbook AI replace design or construction professionals?** No. It provides possible issues and source evidence for qualified review. Final design, engineering, construction, code, and ownership decisions stay with the responsible people. ### Make document risk visible before it becomes project cost Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Building Owners — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/for/owners/ Groundbook AI helps building owners check design documents against owner requirements, standards, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. ## Keep owner requirements from getting lost in the set Review project drawings, specifications, checklists, standards, and uploaded code sources together. Groundbook AI helps owner and facilities teams see possible gaps before they become change orders, operational compromises, or long-term maintenance problems. Groundbook AI for building owners is an AI plan review that checks design and construction documents against owner standards, facilities requirements, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. It flags possible omissions and conflicts with the exact sheet and location, so owner and facilities teams can confirm their requirements are in the set before construction. ### Connect what the project promised to what the documents show Groundbook AI gives owner representatives and facilities teams a structured way to check project intent across a complex set. #### Keep standards in the conversation Compare owner criteria, design guidelines, program requirements, and review checklists with the documents being delivered. #### Review beyond turnover Surface possible maintainability, access, durability, equipment, finish, and performance questions before construction. #### Bring evidence to the team See the exact pages and sources behind a finding so the appropriate professional can verify and resolve it. ### A consistent review across requirements, design, and delivery Review a single project or bring repeatable standards to a larger capital program and facilities portfolio. #### Owner standards and checklists Apply owner project requirements, design standards, facilities criteria, lender checks, brand standards, or program checklists. #### Cross-discipline coordination Surface possible conflicts and missing coordination across architectural, structural, MEP, fire-protection, civil, and other documents. #### Drawing-to-spec consistency Look for material, product, equipment, rating, warranty, performance, testing, and closeout requirements that may not align. #### Uploaded code-source review Compare project documents with selected code PDFs and flag possible egress, accessibility, fire-safety, or other compliance items. ### Add oversight without slowing the project down #### Upload requirements and design Add the milestone set, specifications, owner standards, checklists, and relevant code or reference files. #### Choose the owner’s priorities Scope the review around requirements, coordination, quality, operations, specifications, and compliance sources. #### Review with responsible parties Share source-linked findings with owner representatives, designers, contractors, and facilities stakeholders. ### Make requirements visible. Keep decisions with professionals Groundbook AI helps owners ask focused questions with source context. It does not replace architectural, engineering, construction, code, or facilities expertise. - Repeatable checks across projects and milestones - Exact source documents behind each finding - Support for every building type and major language ### Connect owner priorities to project delivery ### What owner teams ask **Can we review against our own owner standards?** Yes. Upload owner project requirements, facilities standards, brand criteria, program checklists, lender requirements, or other review documents and include them in the selected checks. **Can facilities teams use Groundbook AI?** Yes. Facilities teams can bring operational, access, maintainability, equipment, material, turnover, and other owner priorities into a project-specific review checklist. **Does Groundbook AI approve designs or code compliance?** No. Groundbook AI flags possible issues against uploaded sources. Final design, code, construction, and operational decisions remain with the responsible professionals and authorities. ### Check the project against what matters to you Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your requirements. --- # AI Plan Review for Plans Examiners — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/for/plan-reviewers/ Groundbook AI helps plans examiners and third-party reviewers screen permit sets against drawings, specs, checklists, and code sources with traceable evidence. ## Review more of every set. Keep every decision yours Give public and third-party plan review teams a source-linked first pass across permit drawings, specifications, review checklists, and uploaded code materials—so experienced reviewers can focus on the issues that need professional judgment. Groundbook AI for plans examiners is an AI-assisted screening of permit sets that compares drawings, specifications, and checklists against uploaded code sources and returns possible questions with the exact sheet, location, and supporting source. Every determination stays with the reviewer and the authority having jurisdiction; the tool widens coverage of the first pass. California reviewers can also read our guide to AB 253 and third-party residential plan review. ### A broader first pass without lowering the standard of review Permit sets contain thousands of connected requirements. Groundbook AI helps examiners investigate more of those relationships while preserving the reviewer’s authority. #### Cover more of the set Screen plans, schedules, details, specifications, and supporting documents for questions that deserve examiner attention. #### Apply the same first pass Run repeatable review instructions across projects while leaving nuanced interpretation to qualified reviewers. #### Start from cited evidence Give reviewers the relevant sheet, location, and source context behind each finding before they decide what to do. ### Permit review signals across the complete project set Choose the documents and review instructions for each project. Groundbook AI returns structured, source-linked findings for your team to verify. #### Permit-set consistency Compare plans, schedules, sections, details, notes, calculations, and specifications for information that may not align. #### Cross-discipline coordination Follow possible life-safety, accessibility, structural, MEP, fire-protection, energy, and civil issues across related documents. #### Uploaded code-source review Compare project documents with the specific adopted-code excerpts, local amendments, standards, and reference PDFs you provide. #### Your review checklists Apply jurisdiction, firm, discipline, permit-type, completeness, or project-specific checklists across the submission. ### Support the reviewer before comments are issued Use Groundbook AI to organize a consistent first pass, investigate cross-file relationships, and prepare possible issues for examiner validation. Your existing review process remains the system of record. - Municipal plan review Give building-department staff a source-linked screening layer before formal determinations. - Third-party plan review Help consulting teams apply repeatable internal procedures across a changing project queue. - Specialty and peer review Focus the review on selected disciplines, checklists, or uploaded reference sources. ### From submission to validated review questions #### Upload the review package Add permit drawings, specifications, calculations, checklists, and the code or reference material needed for context. #### Define the first pass Select cross-file, checklist, and uploaded code-source checks that match the jurisdiction, scope, and permit type. #### Validate every finding Review the cited evidence, apply professional judgment, and decide whether an item belongs in the official process. ### Groundbook AI does not approve permits Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and their supporting evidence. It does not determine code compliance, exercise delegated authority, stamp or seal documents, or replace the plans examiner, licensed reviewer, or authority having jurisdiction. - Reviewer validation before any official action - Evidence linked to each possible finding - Scope defined by your uploaded sources and instructions ### See how adjacent project teams use Groundbook AI ### What plan review teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review against building codes?** Groundbook AI can compare project documents with uploaded building-code sources and return cited possible issues for qualified review. Your team determines which provisions apply and makes all compliance decisions. **Can we include local amendments and jurisdiction checklists?** Yes. Upload the relevant amendment, standard, checklist, or review instruction with the project so it can be included as a source in the selected review scope. **Does Groundbook AI replace a plans examiner or licensed third-party reviewer?** No. It supports a source-linked first pass. A qualified reviewer remains responsible for interpretation, completeness, comments, approvals, and every exercise of professional or delegated authority. **Can review teams focus on a particular discipline or permit type?** Yes. The uploaded files and selected instructions define the review scope, whether the team is screening a complete building set or focusing on structural, MEP, life-safety, accessibility, energy, or another area. ### See how AI-assisted plan review fits your process Walk us through a representative review package, your checklists, and the decisions your reviewers need to keep. --- # AI Plan Review for Healthcare Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/healthcare/ Review hospital, clinic, medical office, laboratory, life-science, and senior-living construction documents for coordination, consistency, and compliance issues. ## Coordinate the building where every system matters Groundbook AI cross-checks complex healthcare drawing sets, specifications, equipment requirements, and review criteria so teams can investigate coordination gaps before construction. - Hospitals - Clinics - Medical offices - Laboratories - Life sciences - Senior living AI plan review for healthcare projects is a first-pass check of hospital, clinic, laboratory, and senior-living document sets that cross-checks room requirements, medical equipment, medical gas, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, and structure against specifications, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible coordination and compliance questions with the exact sheet and location for qualified review. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Keep room requirements aligned Clinical spaces connect architectural, equipment, electrical, plumbing, medical-gas, HVAC, and specialty requirements. #### Review congested interfaces Surface possible conflicts around ceilings, headwalls, booms, shielding, equipment, shafts, and service access. #### Trace requirements to documents Compare the set against uploaded owner criteria, project checklists, and applicable code sources selected by the team. ### Review criteria shaped around healthcare work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Room and equipment consistency Cross-check room names, numbers, equipment, utilities, finishes, clearances, and schedules across related documents. #### Clinical system coordination Review medical gas, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, structure, ceilings, and equipment interfaces. #### Drawing-to-spec alignment Look for conflicting materials, ratings, performance criteria, products, and installation requirements. #### Healthcare checklists and code sources Apply infection-control, accessibility, life-safety, owner, permit, and project-specific review criteria. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Clinical and technical judgment stays with the project team Groundbook AI organizes possible issues and supporting evidence. It does not approve clinical planning, code compliance, engineering, infection-control measures, or professional design decisions. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What healthcare teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review medical equipment information with the drawings?** Yes. Include equipment plans, schedules, room data, utility requirements, drawings, specifications, and checklists so the review can compare related information. **Can we review a renovation or occupied healthcare project?** Yes. Upload the available existing-condition, demolition, phasing, infection-control, and new-work documents and define the checks that matter to the project. **Does Groundbook AI determine healthcare code compliance?** No. It can compare project documents with uploaded code sources and flag possible questions for qualified review; the responsible professionals and authorities make compliance decisions. ### Give the next healthcare set a broader coordination pass Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Education Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/education/ Review K–12 school, higher-education, laboratory, and sports-facility construction documents for coordination, consistency, accessibility, and project requirements. ## Review learning environments before the milestone moves on Groundbook AI helps school, campus, and design teams cross-check classrooms, labs, assembly spaces, building systems, specifications, and district or campus standards. - K–12 schools - Higher education - Laboratories - Sports and recreation - Campus renovations AI plan review for education projects is a first-pass check of K–12, higher-education, laboratory, and athletics document sets that cross-checks repeated room types, specialized program spaces, building systems, and site work against district or campus standards, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible inconsistencies and coordination gaps with the exact sheet and location. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Find inconsistencies at scale Repeated room types and campus standards can drift between plans, schedules, details, and specifications. #### Protect specialized spaces Labs, kitchens, shops, theaters, athletics, and technology spaces depend on tightly coordinated requirements. #### Raise questions earlier Give the team more coverage before board reviews, permit submissions, bid packages, and summer construction windows. ### Review criteria shaped around education work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Room, schedule, and detail consistency Compare classroom types, room names, finishes, doors, casework, equipment, and accessibility information. #### Specialized program coordination Review laboratory, food service, athletics, theater, shop, library, technology, and student-support spaces. #### Systems and site interfaces Cross-check architecture, structure, MEP, fire protection, civil, landscape, technology, and security documents. #### District and campus requirements Apply facilities standards, educational specifications, owner checklists, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Keep educators, owners, and design professionals in control Groundbook AI accelerates document comparison. The project team remains responsible for educational programming, accessibility, safety, code, engineering, and design decisions. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What education teams ask **Can we use district or university design standards?** Yes. Upload district, campus, facilities, accessibility, sustainability, or project-specific standards and include them in the review scope. **Can Groundbook AI compare repeated classroom types?** Yes. It can cross-check related plans, schedules, elevations, details, specifications, and requirements for possible inconsistencies. **Does this work for renovations and phased campus projects?** Yes. Include the existing-condition, demolition, phasing, and new-work documents that define the project context. ### Give the next education milestone more review coverage Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Commercial Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/commercial/ Review office, retail, restaurant, hotel, tenant-improvement, mixed-use, interior, renovation, and preservation project documents with Groundbook AI. ## Keep fast-moving commercial sets aligned Groundbook AI reviews commercial drawings, specifications, consultant sets, tenant criteria, brand standards, and checklists for issues that can disrupt permit, procurement, or opening day. - Offices - Commercial interiors - Tenant improvements - Retail - Restaurants - Hotels - Mixed-use - Renovations - Historic preservation AI plan review for commercial projects is a first-pass check of office, retail, restaurant, hotel, tenant-improvement, and mixed-use document sets that cross-checks shell, core, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages against specifications, brand or tenant criteria, checklists, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible scope, coordination, and compliance questions with the exact sheet and location. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Review changing sets quickly Commercial projects move through overlapping design, permit, pricing, landlord, tenant, and procurement decisions. #### Connect every scope boundary Base building, tenant, food service, interiors, signage, equipment, and consultant packages must work as one set. #### Catch turnover risks early Surface possible gaps that affect long-lead items, inspections, commissioning, accessibility, or opening requirements. ### Review criteria shaped around commercial work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Fast review still needs experienced judgment Groundbook AI points teams to possible issues and their sources. Architects, engineers, contractors, owners, operators, and authorities retain all professional and project decisions. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What commercial teams ask **Can Groundbook AI compare landlord and tenant documents?** Yes. Upload the relevant shell, core, landlord, tenant, interiors, equipment, and consultant documents so the review can follow scope and coordination relationships. **Does it work for prototype or rollout programs?** Yes. Teams can include prototype criteria, brand standards, checklists, and site-specific documents in each project review. **Can we use it during a renovation?** Yes. Existing-condition, demolition, phasing, preservation, and new-work documents can be reviewed together when they are included in the project. ### Review the commercial set before the next deadline does Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Residential Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/residential/ Review multifamily, single-family, ADU, senior-living, and mixed-use residential documents for coordination, consistency, accessibility, and requirements. ## Catch repeatable issues before they repeat in the field Groundbook AI cross-checks residential unit types, assemblies, schedules, systems, specifications, and project criteria so teams can investigate issues before they multiply across the building. - Multifamily - Single-family homes - ADUs - Senior living - Mixed-use - Renovations AI plan review for residential projects is a first-pass check of multifamily, single-family, ADU, senior-living, and mixed-use document sets that cross-checks unit types, assemblies, schedules, and building systems against specifications, accessibility checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible repeated-unit inconsistencies and coordination gaps with the exact sheet and location. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Stop one issue from becoming many A small mismatch in a typical unit, wall type, window, or detail can repeat across floors and buildings. #### Track assembly requirements Acoustic, thermal, waterproofing, fire-resistance, accessibility, and durability criteria span many documents. #### Coordinate within tight layouts Residential units, corridors, ceilings, shafts, and amenity spaces leave little room for system conflicts. ### Review criteria shaped around residential work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Unit and room-type consistency Compare typical and accessible units, dimensions, doors, windows, finishes, casework, fixtures, and appliances. #### Envelope and assembly alignment Review exterior wall, roof, waterproofing, acoustic, fire-rated, and structural assembly information. #### MEP and life-safety coordination Cross-check shafts, risers, equipment, panels, devices, clearances, ceilings, sprinklers, and rated construction. #### Owner, accessibility, and code criteria Apply residential standards, accessibility checklists, owner requirements, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Keep housing decisions with qualified professionals Groundbook AI provides an evidence-backed first pass. Responsible professionals retain decisions about design, engineering, accessibility, building codes, life safety, and construction. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What residential teams ask **Can Groundbook AI compare typical unit types across the set?** Yes. It can compare related unit plans, enlarged plans, schedules, elevations, details, specifications, and requirements for possible inconsistencies. **Does it work for single-family homes and ADUs?** Yes. The workflow can review projects of different sizes, including homes, ADUs, renovations, multifamily buildings, and mixed-use developments. **Can it review accessibility requirements?** Teams can upload accessibility checklists and code sources for comparison. Qualified professionals and authorities remain responsible for compliance decisions. ### Give the next residential set a more systematic first pass Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Industrial Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/industrial/ Review warehouse, cold-storage, manufacturing, distribution-center, storage-facility, and industrial-renovation documents for coordination and constructability. ## Coordinate process, structure, and building systems before installation Groundbook AI helps industrial project teams compare building, process, equipment, utility, structural, fire-protection, and site documents before conflicts affect procurement or production. - Warehouses - Cold storage - Manufacturing - Distribution centers - Storage facilities - Industrial renovations AI plan review for industrial projects is a first-pass check of warehouse, cold-storage, manufacturing, and distribution document sets that cross-checks process equipment, structure, building systems, and site work against specifications, owner criteria, checklists, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible coordination and constructability questions with the exact sheet and location before procurement and installation. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Coordinate vendor requirements Process equipment, conveyors, racks, cranes, utilities, pads, openings, and structure arrive through many sources. #### Track specialized assemblies Cold, clean, hazardous, high-bay, heavy-load, and controlled environments depend on aligned performance requirements. #### Keep access and maintainability visible Installation paths, service zones, shutdowns, phasing, and future operations must be considered before field work. ### Review criteria shaped around industrial work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Equipment and utility coordination Review vendor layouts, loads, connections, pads, penetrations, clearances, service zones, and building-system interfaces. #### Structure, envelope, and process Cross-check frames, racks, cranes, slabs, pits, openings, insulated assemblies, roofs, and process requirements. #### Fire protection and life safety Compare hazard classifications, storage arrangements, suppression, egress, rated construction, and emergency systems. #### Constructability and owner criteria Apply installation, access, maintenance, commissioning, safety, phasing, and project-specific checklists. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Operational expertise remains essential Groundbook AI supports document review; it does not validate process design, equipment selection, industrial safety, hazardous-material requirements, engineering, or code compliance. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What industrial teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review vendor and equipment documents?** Yes. Include the relevant vendor layouts, equipment schedules, utility requirements, loads, drawings, specifications, and checklists in the project. **Does it work for cold storage and specialized environments?** Yes. Teams can define review checks around insulated assemblies, vapor control, refrigeration, temperature, process, and other project-specific requirements. **Can we use it for an operating-facility renovation?** Yes. Include existing-condition, demolition, phasing, shutdown, owner, and new-work information needed to understand the review scope. ### Review the industrial set before procurement and installation Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Data Centers — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/data-centers/ Review data-center, colocation, and mission-critical construction documents for system coordination, redundancy, consistency, and owner requirements. ## Review mission-critical coordination before uptime is on the line Groundbook AI cross-checks electrical, mechanical, controls, fire-protection, structural, architectural, civil, equipment, and owner documents across dense mission-critical programs. - Data centers - Mission-critical facilities - Colocation - Enterprise campuses - Retrofits and expansions AI plan review for data centers is a first-pass check of data-center, colocation, and mission-critical document sets that cross-checks electrical, mechanical, fire-protection, structural, and security systems against redundancy requirements, specifications, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible coordination, consistency, and requirement gaps with the exact sheet and location for qualified review. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Keep parallel systems distinct Naming, source, path, capacity, control, and sequence information must align across many drawings and schedules. #### Review congested service zones Electrical and mechanical distribution, structure, fire protection, controls, and access compete for limited space. #### Protect repeatable programs Program standards, vendor packages, long-lead equipment, commissioning, and phased turnover increase coordination pressure. ### Review criteria shaped around data centers work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Electrical system consistency Compare one-lines, plans, schedules, equipment names, feeders, capacities, pathways, grounding, and redundancy information. #### Mechanical and controls coordination Review cooling equipment, piping, air systems, controls, sequences, leak detection, and service clearances. #### Multidiscipline spatial coordination Cross-check structure, cable tray, busway, ductwork, piping, fire protection, rooms, yards, and maintenance access. #### Owner and commissioning requirements Apply basis-of-design, resilience, commissioning, turnover, security, and program-specific checklists. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Reliability decisions stay with mission-critical experts Groundbook AI organizes possible document issues. It does not certify capacity, redundancy, resilience, commissioning, electrical or mechanical engineering, safety, or uptime performance. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What data centers teams ask **Can Groundbook AI check redundant system naming and paths?** It can compare the information represented in uploaded drawings, schedules, specifications, diagrams, and owner criteria and flag possible inconsistencies for team review. **Can we include owner and commissioning standards?** Yes. Upload basis-of-design documents, program standards, commissioning requirements, checklists, and other project criteria as review references. **Does Groundbook AI certify uptime or system capacity?** No. It supports document comparison only. Qualified designers, operators, commissioning providers, and authorities retain all engineering and performance decisions. ### Give the next mission-critical set a wider first pass Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Government and Civic Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/government/ Review government, public-safety, library, museum, cultural, worship, renovation, and historic-preservation project documents for requirements and coordination. ## Make public project requirements easier to verify Groundbook AI helps civic owners and project teams compare drawings, specifications, agency standards, program requirements, consultant sets, checklists, and uploaded code sources. - Government - Public safety - Libraries - Museums and cultural - Places of worship - Historic preservation - Renovations AI plan review for government and civic projects is a first-pass check of public-safety, library, museum, cultural, and civic document sets that cross-checks drawings, specifications, and consultant packages against public-agency requirements, accessibility criteria, checklists, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible requirement and coordination questions with the exact sheet and location for qualified review. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Track public-owner criteria Agency standards, program requirements, funding commitments, security criteria, and technical specifications span many sources. #### Coordinate specialized needs Public safety, collections, archives, community spaces, courts, worship, and operations require distinct systems and adjacencies. #### Review renovation constraints Historic fabric, occupied operations, hazardous-material information, phasing, and new systems must align across the set. ### Review criteria shaped around government & civic work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Agency and program requirements Compare rooms, functions, equipment, finishes, security, accessibility, operations, and owner standards with the drawings. #### Drawing and specification consistency Review materials, products, ratings, schedules, details, performance criteria, and responsibility across documents. #### Existing, demolition, and new work Cross-check survey information, protection, removals, phasing, preservation, structure, and new building-system interfaces. #### Checklist and uploaded code review Apply agency, permit, funding, accessibility, preservation, owner, and project-specific review criteria. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Public accountability still depends on qualified review Groundbook AI helps teams investigate possible gaps. Owners, agencies, architects, engineers, preservation specialists, security experts, contractors, and authorities make all project decisions. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What government & civic teams ask **Can we include agency design standards and owner project requirements?** Yes. Upload agency standards, owner project requirements, facility criteria, security criteria, checklists, and other relevant source documents. **Can Groundbook AI review historic-preservation work?** It can compare uploaded existing-condition, demolition, preservation, new-work, consultant, and specification documents for possible coordination and consistency issues. **Does it make procurement or public-code determinations?** No. It provides possible findings for qualified review and does not replace procurement, legal, code, funding, design, engineering, or authority decisions. ### Give the next civic project a more traceable first pass Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Civil and Infrastructure — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/civil-infrastructure/ Review airport, transit, parking, sports, recreation, and civil-works project documents for multidisciplinary coordination and requirements. ## Connect infrastructure documents before field constraints decide for you Groundbook AI cross-checks civil, structural, architectural, utility, systems, specifications, phasing, agency criteria, and related building documents across infrastructure programs. - Airports - Transit facilities - Parking structures - Sports and recreation - Infrastructure - Civil works AI plan review for civil and infrastructure projects is a first-pass check of airport, transit, parking, sports, and civil-works document sets that cross-checks plans, profiles, utilities, structures, and building systems against specifications, phasing requirements, checklists, and uploaded code sources. Groundbook AI returns possible coordination and requirement gaps with the exact sheet, station, or location for qualified review. ### A broader first pass across the documents that define the project Use Groundbook AI at a design, permit, bid, construction, or turnover milestone to investigate possible issues while the team can still resolve them. #### Review long, distributed systems Infrastructure relationships span plans, profiles, sections, details, schedules, calculations, specifications, and geographic extents. #### Connect many disciplines Civil, utilities, structures, buildings, rail, roadway, aviation, technology, security, and operations meet at critical boundaries. #### Keep operations and construction aligned Maintenance of traffic, passenger movement, temporary work, outages, access, and agency approvals shape constructability. ### Review criteria shaped around civil & infrastructure work Choose the documents and checks that match the project. Groundbook AI returns structured findings with exact source references for qualified review. #### Plans, profiles, and utility coordination Compare stationing, alignments, inverts, elevations, slopes, crossings, structures, easements, and utility information. #### Civil-to-building interfaces Review grading, drainage, foundations, entries, accessibility, site utilities, equipment yards, paving, and landscape relationships. #### Structural and systems coordination Cross-check structures, clearances, loads, equipment, technology, power, lighting, fire protection, and maintenance access. #### Agency, phasing, and checklist review Apply owner standards, maintenance-of-traffic, operations, safety, permit, accessibility, and project-specific criteria. ### Fit more coverage into the review process you already have #### Upload the project set Add drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select cross-file, drawing-to-spec, checklist, and uploaded code-source comparisons that match the milestone. #### Verify with the team Open findings with their supporting evidence, confirm the issue, and route the right items for action. ### Infrastructure judgment remains with the responsible teams Groundbook AI supports document review. It does not validate surveys, calculations, capacity, geotechnical conditions, operations, safety plans, engineering, code, or agency approvals. - Evidence linked to every possible finding - Severity, discipline, impact, and recommended action - Results typically ready in 24 hours ### Review every part of a mixed portfolio ### What civil & infrastructure teams ask **Can Groundbook AI compare civil plans and profiles with other disciplines?** Yes. Include the relevant civil, utility, structural, architectural, MEP, systems, specification, and reference documents in the review. **Can it review phasing and maintenance-of-traffic requirements?** Teams can upload phasing plans, operations criteria, maintenance-of-traffic documents, checklists, and related project sources for comparison. **Does Groundbook AI validate survey or engineering calculations?** No. It compares information in the uploaded documents and returns possible issues for qualified professional review. ### Review the infrastructure set before the next field decision Set up a review yourself, or book time to talk through your project. --- # AI Plan Review for Hospital Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/hospitals/ Review hospital drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for hospital projects Cross-check hospital rooms, medical equipment, clinical systems, life-safety information, and owner requirements across the project set. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for hospital projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for hospital projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Room and equipment consistency Cross-check room names, numbers, equipment, utilities, finishes, clearances, and schedules across related documents. #### Clinical system coordination Review medical gas, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, structure, ceilings, and equipment interfaces. #### Drawing-to-spec alignment Look for conflicting materials, ratings, performance criteria, products, and installation requirements. #### Healthcare checklists and code sources Apply infection-control, accessibility, life-safety, owner, permit, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the hospital project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all healthcare project reviews ### What hospital project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review hospital projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the hospital project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a hospital review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next hospital set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Clinic Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/clinics/ Review clinic drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for clinic projects Review clinic layouts, treatment spaces, equipment, utilities, accessibility information, and specifications as one coordinated set. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for clinic projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for clinic projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Room and equipment consistency Cross-check room names, numbers, equipment, utilities, finishes, clearances, and schedules across related documents. #### Clinical system coordination Review medical gas, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, structure, ceilings, and equipment interfaces. #### Drawing-to-spec alignment Look for conflicting materials, ratings, performance criteria, products, and installation requirements. #### Healthcare checklists and code sources Apply infection-control, accessibility, life-safety, owner, permit, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the clinic project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all healthcare project reviews ### What clinic project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review clinic projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the clinic project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a clinic review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next clinic set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Medical office Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/medical-offices/ Review medical office drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for medical office projects Compare medical-office plans, room requirements, equipment, building systems, finishes, and tenant criteria before construction. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for medical office projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for medical office projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Room and equipment consistency Cross-check room names, numbers, equipment, utilities, finishes, clearances, and schedules across related documents. #### Clinical system coordination Review medical gas, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, structure, ceilings, and equipment interfaces. #### Drawing-to-spec alignment Look for conflicting materials, ratings, performance criteria, products, and installation requirements. #### Healthcare checklists and code sources Apply infection-control, accessibility, life-safety, owner, permit, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the medical office project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all healthcare project reviews ### What medical office project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review medical office projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the medical office project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a medical office review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next medical office set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Laboratory Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/laboratories/ Review laboratory drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for laboratory projects Follow laboratory casework, equipment, exhaust, utilities, controls, structure, and safety requirements across disciplines. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for laboratory projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for laboratory projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Room and equipment consistency Cross-check room names, numbers, equipment, utilities, finishes, clearances, and schedules across related documents. #### Clinical system coordination Review medical gas, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, structure, ceilings, and equipment interfaces. #### Drawing-to-spec alignment Look for conflicting materials, ratings, performance criteria, products, and installation requirements. #### Healthcare checklists and code sources Apply infection-control, accessibility, life-safety, owner, permit, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the laboratory project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all healthcare project reviews ### What laboratory project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review laboratory projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the laboratory project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a laboratory review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next laboratory set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Life-science Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/life-sciences/ Review life-science drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for life-science projects Review life-science laboratories, controlled environments, process utilities, equipment, commissioning criteria, and building systems together. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for life-science projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for life-science projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Room and equipment consistency Cross-check room names, numbers, equipment, utilities, finishes, clearances, and schedules across related documents. #### Clinical system coordination Review medical gas, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, structure, ceilings, and equipment interfaces. #### Drawing-to-spec alignment Look for conflicting materials, ratings, performance criteria, products, and installation requirements. #### Healthcare checklists and code sources Apply infection-control, accessibility, life-safety, owner, permit, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the life-science project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all healthcare project reviews ### What life-science project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review life-science projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the life-science project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a life-science review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next life-science set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for K–12 school Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/k-12-schools/ Review K–12 school drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for K–12 school projects Check classrooms, specialized learning spaces, accessibility, campus standards, life safety, and consultant documents for possible gaps. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for K–12 school projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for K–12 school projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Room, schedule, and detail consistency Compare classroom types, room names, finishes, doors, casework, equipment, and accessibility information. #### Specialized program coordination Review laboratory, food service, athletics, theater, shop, library, technology, and student-support spaces. #### Systems and site interfaces Cross-check architecture, structure, MEP, fire protection, civil, landscape, technology, and security documents. #### District and campus requirements Apply facilities standards, educational specifications, owner checklists, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the K–12 school project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all education project reviews ### What K–12 school project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review K–12 school projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the K–12 school project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a K–12 school review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next K–12 school set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Higher education Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/higher-education/ Review higher education drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for higher education projects Coordinate campus, academic, research, residential, athletics, and facilities requirements across higher-education document sets. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for higher education projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for higher education projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Room, schedule, and detail consistency Compare classroom types, room names, finishes, doors, casework, equipment, and accessibility information. #### Specialized program coordination Review laboratory, food service, athletics, theater, shop, library, technology, and student-support spaces. #### Systems and site interfaces Cross-check architecture, structure, MEP, fire protection, civil, landscape, technology, and security documents. #### District and campus requirements Apply facilities standards, educational specifications, owner checklists, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the higher education project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all education project reviews ### What higher education project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review higher education projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the higher education project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a higher education review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next higher education set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Office Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/offices/ Review office drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for office projects Compare office layouts, interiors, landlord criteria, tenant requirements, building systems, schedules, and specifications before build-out. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for office projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for office projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the office project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What office project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review office projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the office project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a office review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next office set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Commercial interior Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/commercial-interiors/ Review commercial interior drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for commercial interior projects Review interior plans, reflected ceilings, finishes, millwork, furniture, equipment, and consultant systems across the full package. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for commercial interior projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for commercial interior projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the commercial interior project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What commercial interior project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review commercial interior projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the commercial interior project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a commercial interior review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next commercial interior set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Tenant-improvement Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/tenant-improvements/ Review tenant-improvement drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for tenant-improvement projects Connect landlord, base-building, tenant, interiors, equipment, and consultant documents at every scope boundary. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for tenant-improvement projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for tenant-improvement projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the tenant-improvement project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What tenant-improvement project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review tenant-improvement projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the tenant-improvement project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a tenant-improvement review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next tenant-improvement set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Retail Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/retail/ Review retail drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for retail projects Check retail prototypes, site-specific plans, brand standards, equipment, signage, accessibility, and building-system interfaces. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for retail projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for retail projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the retail project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What retail project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review retail projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the retail project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a retail review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next retail set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Restaurant Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/restaurants/ Review restaurant drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for restaurant projects Coordinate kitchen equipment, food-service utilities, exhaust, fire protection, accessibility, interiors, and health requirements. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for restaurant projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for restaurant projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the restaurant project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What restaurant project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review restaurant projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the restaurant project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a restaurant review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next restaurant set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Hotel Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/hotels/ Review hotel drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for hotel projects Compare guestrooms, public spaces, back-of-house areas, brand standards, vertical systems, schedules, and specifications. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for hotel projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for hotel projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the hotel project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What hotel project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review hotel projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the hotel project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a hotel review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next hotel set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Warehouse Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/warehouses/ Review warehouse drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for warehouse projects Review high-bay structure, storage layouts, loading operations, fire protection, equipment, utilities, and site interfaces together. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for warehouse projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for warehouse projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Equipment and utility coordination Review vendor layouts, loads, connections, pads, penetrations, clearances, service zones, and building-system interfaces. #### Structure, envelope, and process Cross-check frames, racks, cranes, slabs, pits, openings, insulated assemblies, roofs, and process requirements. #### Fire protection and life safety Compare hazard classifications, storage arrangements, suppression, egress, rated construction, and emergency systems. #### Constructability and owner criteria Apply installation, access, maintenance, commissioning, safety, phasing, and project-specific checklists. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the warehouse project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all industrial project reviews ### What warehouse project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review warehouse projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the warehouse project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a warehouse review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next warehouse set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Cold-storage Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/cold-storage/ Review cold-storage drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for cold-storage projects Check insulated assemblies, refrigeration, vapor control, slabs, equipment, fire protection, and operational requirements across documents. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for cold-storage projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for cold-storage projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Equipment and utility coordination Review vendor layouts, loads, connections, pads, penetrations, clearances, service zones, and building-system interfaces. #### Structure, envelope, and process Cross-check frames, racks, cranes, slabs, pits, openings, insulated assemblies, roofs, and process requirements. #### Fire protection and life safety Compare hazard classifications, storage arrangements, suppression, egress, rated construction, and emergency systems. #### Constructability and owner criteria Apply installation, access, maintenance, commissioning, safety, phasing, and project-specific checklists. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the cold-storage project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all industrial project reviews ### What cold-storage project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review cold-storage projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the cold-storage project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a cold-storage review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next cold-storage set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Manufacturing Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/manufacturing/ Review manufacturing drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for manufacturing projects Coordinate process equipment, production layouts, utilities, structure, safety systems, access, and commissioning requirements. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for manufacturing projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for manufacturing projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Equipment and utility coordination Review vendor layouts, loads, connections, pads, penetrations, clearances, service zones, and building-system interfaces. #### Structure, envelope, and process Cross-check frames, racks, cranes, slabs, pits, openings, insulated assemblies, roofs, and process requirements. #### Fire protection and life safety Compare hazard classifications, storage arrangements, suppression, egress, rated construction, and emergency systems. #### Constructability and owner criteria Apply installation, access, maintenance, commissioning, safety, phasing, and project-specific checklists. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the manufacturing project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all industrial project reviews ### What manufacturing project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review manufacturing projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the manufacturing project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a manufacturing review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next manufacturing set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Distribution-center Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/distribution-centers/ Review distribution-center drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for distribution-center projects Connect material-handling equipment, racks, docks, structure, power, fire protection, controls, and circulation requirements. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for distribution-center projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for distribution-center projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Equipment and utility coordination Review vendor layouts, loads, connections, pads, penetrations, clearances, service zones, and building-system interfaces. #### Structure, envelope, and process Cross-check frames, racks, cranes, slabs, pits, openings, insulated assemblies, roofs, and process requirements. #### Fire protection and life safety Compare hazard classifications, storage arrangements, suppression, egress, rated construction, and emergency systems. #### Constructability and owner criteria Apply installation, access, maintenance, commissioning, safety, phasing, and project-specific checklists. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the distribution-center project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all industrial project reviews ### What distribution-center project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review distribution-center projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the distribution-center project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a distribution-center review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next distribution-center set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Storage-facility Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/storage-facilities/ Review storage-facility drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for storage-facility projects Review storage layouts, unit access, structure, envelope, security, fire protection, drainage, and operational criteria. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for storage-facility projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for storage-facility projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Equipment and utility coordination Review vendor layouts, loads, connections, pads, penetrations, clearances, service zones, and building-system interfaces. #### Structure, envelope, and process Cross-check frames, racks, cranes, slabs, pits, openings, insulated assemblies, roofs, and process requirements. #### Fire protection and life safety Compare hazard classifications, storage arrangements, suppression, egress, rated construction, and emergency systems. #### Constructability and owner criteria Apply installation, access, maintenance, commissioning, safety, phasing, and project-specific checklists. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the storage-facility project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all industrial project reviews ### What storage-facility project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review storage-facility projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the storage-facility project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a storage-facility review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next storage-facility set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Mixed-use Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/mixed-use/ Review mixed-use drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for mixed-use projects Trace interfaces between residential, retail, office, hospitality, parking, shared structure, and central building systems. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for mixed-use projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for mixed-use projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the mixed-use project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What mixed-use project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review mixed-use projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the mixed-use project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a mixed-use review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next mixed-use set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Multifamily Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/multifamily/ Review multifamily drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for multifamily projects Compare repeated units, accessibility, rated assemblies, vertical systems, amenities, schedules, and specifications at scale. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for multifamily projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for multifamily projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Unit and room-type consistency Compare typical and accessible units, dimensions, doors, windows, finishes, casework, fixtures, and appliances. #### Envelope and assembly alignment Review exterior wall, roof, waterproofing, acoustic, fire-rated, and structural assembly information. #### MEP and life-safety coordination Cross-check shafts, risers, equipment, panels, devices, clearances, ceilings, sprinklers, and rated construction. #### Owner, accessibility, and code criteria Apply residential standards, accessibility checklists, owner requirements, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the multifamily project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all residential project reviews ### What multifamily project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review multifamily projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the multifamily project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a multifamily review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next multifamily set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Single-family home Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/single-family-homes/ Review single-family home drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for single-family home projects Review home plans, structure, envelope, energy details, building systems, schedules, and specifications for possible inconsistencies. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for single-family home projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for single-family home projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Unit and room-type consistency Compare typical and accessible units, dimensions, doors, windows, finishes, casework, fixtures, and appliances. #### Envelope and assembly alignment Review exterior wall, roof, waterproofing, acoustic, fire-rated, and structural assembly information. #### MEP and life-safety coordination Cross-check shafts, risers, equipment, panels, devices, clearances, ceilings, sprinklers, and rated construction. #### Owner, accessibility, and code criteria Apply residential standards, accessibility checklists, owner requirements, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the single-family home project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all residential project reviews ### What single-family home project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review single-family home projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the single-family home project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a single-family home review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next single-family home set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for ADU Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/adus/ Review ADU drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for ADU projects Check compact ADU layouts, site constraints, utilities, structure, accessibility, energy requirements, and connections to existing work. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for ADU projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for ADU projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Unit and room-type consistency Compare typical and accessible units, dimensions, doors, windows, finishes, casework, fixtures, and appliances. #### Envelope and assembly alignment Review exterior wall, roof, waterproofing, acoustic, fire-rated, and structural assembly information. #### MEP and life-safety coordination Cross-check shafts, risers, equipment, panels, devices, clearances, ceilings, sprinklers, and rated construction. #### Owner, accessibility, and code criteria Apply residential standards, accessibility checklists, owner requirements, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the ADU project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all residential project reviews ### What ADU project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review ADU projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the ADU project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a ADU review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next ADU set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Senior-living Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/senior-living/ Review senior-living drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for senior-living projects Coordinate residential units, care and amenity spaces, accessibility, life safety, equipment, and operational requirements. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for senior-living projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for senior-living projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Unit and room-type consistency Compare typical and accessible units, dimensions, doors, windows, finishes, casework, fixtures, and appliances. #### Envelope and assembly alignment Review exterior wall, roof, waterproofing, acoustic, fire-rated, and structural assembly information. #### MEP and life-safety coordination Cross-check shafts, risers, equipment, panels, devices, clearances, ceilings, sprinklers, and rated construction. #### Owner, accessibility, and code criteria Apply residential standards, accessibility checklists, owner requirements, permit criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the senior-living project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all residential project reviews ### What senior-living project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review senior-living projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the senior-living project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a senior-living review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next senior-living set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Public-Safety Facilities — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/public-safety/ Review public-safety facility drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for public-safety facility projects Review emergency operations, secure circulation, specialized equipment, resilience, communications, and agency requirements. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for public-safety facility projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for public-safety facility projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Agency and program requirements Compare rooms, functions, equipment, finishes, security, accessibility, operations, and owner standards with the drawings. #### Drawing and specification consistency Review materials, products, ratings, schedules, details, performance criteria, and responsibility across documents. #### Existing, demolition, and new work Cross-check survey information, protection, removals, phasing, preservation, structure, and new building-system interfaces. #### Checklist and uploaded code review Apply agency, permit, funding, accessibility, preservation, owner, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the public-safety facility project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all government & civic project reviews ### What public-safety facility project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review public-safety facility projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the public-safety facility project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a public-safety facility review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next public-safety facility set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Library Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/libraries/ Review library drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for library projects Coordinate collections, shelving, public spaces, technology, lighting, accessibility, structure, and environmental requirements. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for library projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for library projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Agency and program requirements Compare rooms, functions, equipment, finishes, security, accessibility, operations, and owner standards with the drawings. #### Drawing and specification consistency Review materials, products, ratings, schedules, details, performance criteria, and responsibility across documents. #### Existing, demolition, and new work Cross-check survey information, protection, removals, phasing, preservation, structure, and new building-system interfaces. #### Checklist and uploaded code review Apply agency, permit, funding, accessibility, preservation, owner, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the library project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all government & civic project reviews ### What library project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review library projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the library project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a library review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next library set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Museum and cultural Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/museums-and-cultural/ Review museum and cultural drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for museum and cultural projects Check galleries, collections, performance and public spaces, environmental controls, security, lighting, and specialty systems. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for museum and cultural projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for museum and cultural projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Agency and program requirements Compare rooms, functions, equipment, finishes, security, accessibility, operations, and owner standards with the drawings. #### Drawing and specification consistency Review materials, products, ratings, schedules, details, performance criteria, and responsibility across documents. #### Existing, demolition, and new work Cross-check survey information, protection, removals, phasing, preservation, structure, and new building-system interfaces. #### Checklist and uploaded code review Apply agency, permit, funding, accessibility, preservation, owner, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the museum and cultural project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all government & civic project reviews ### What museum and cultural project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review museum and cultural projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the museum and cultural project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a museum and cultural review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next museum and cultural set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Place-of-worship Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/places-of-worship/ Review place-of-worship drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for place-of-worship projects Review assembly spaces, acoustics, accessibility, life safety, AV systems, community functions, and building-system coordination. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for place-of-worship projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for place-of-worship projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Agency and program requirements Compare rooms, functions, equipment, finishes, security, accessibility, operations, and owner standards with the drawings. #### Drawing and specification consistency Review materials, products, ratings, schedules, details, performance criteria, and responsibility across documents. #### Existing, demolition, and new work Cross-check survey information, protection, removals, phasing, preservation, structure, and new building-system interfaces. #### Checklist and uploaded code review Apply agency, permit, funding, accessibility, preservation, owner, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the place-of-worship project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all government & civic project reviews ### What place-of-worship project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review place-of-worship projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the place-of-worship project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a place-of-worship review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next place-of-worship set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Airport Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/airports/ Review airport drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for airport projects Connect terminal, airside, landside, baggage, security, civil, structural, building-system, and operational documents. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for airport projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for airport projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, profiles, and utility coordination Compare stationing, alignments, inverts, elevations, slopes, crossings, structures, easements, and utility information. #### Civil-to-building interfaces Review grading, drainage, foundations, entries, accessibility, site utilities, equipment yards, paving, and landscape relationships. #### Structural and systems coordination Cross-check structures, clearances, loads, equipment, technology, power, lighting, fire protection, and maintenance access. #### Agency, phasing, and checklist review Apply owner standards, maintenance-of-traffic, operations, safety, permit, accessibility, and project-specific criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the airport project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all civil & infrastructure project reviews ### What airport project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review airport projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the airport project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a airport review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next airport set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Transit-facility Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/transit-facilities/ Review transit-facility drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for transit-facility projects Review platforms, stations, guideways, passenger circulation, utilities, systems, accessibility, and operational interfaces. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for transit-facility projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for transit-facility projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, profiles, and utility coordination Compare stationing, alignments, inverts, elevations, slopes, crossings, structures, easements, and utility information. #### Civil-to-building interfaces Review grading, drainage, foundations, entries, accessibility, site utilities, equipment yards, paving, and landscape relationships. #### Structural and systems coordination Cross-check structures, clearances, loads, equipment, technology, power, lighting, fire protection, and maintenance access. #### Agency, phasing, and checklist review Apply owner standards, maintenance-of-traffic, operations, safety, permit, accessibility, and project-specific criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the transit-facility project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all civil & infrastructure project reviews ### What transit-facility project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review transit-facility projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the transit-facility project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a transit-facility review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next transit-facility set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Parking-structure Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/parking-structures/ Review parking-structure drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for parking-structure projects Coordinate ramps, clearances, drainage, structure, traffic controls, lighting, ventilation, fire protection, and accessibility. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for parking-structure projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for parking-structure projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, profiles, and utility coordination Compare stationing, alignments, inverts, elevations, slopes, crossings, structures, easements, and utility information. #### Civil-to-building interfaces Review grading, drainage, foundations, entries, accessibility, site utilities, equipment yards, paving, and landscape relationships. #### Structural and systems coordination Cross-check structures, clearances, loads, equipment, technology, power, lighting, fire protection, and maintenance access. #### Agency, phasing, and checklist review Apply owner standards, maintenance-of-traffic, operations, safety, permit, accessibility, and project-specific criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the parking-structure project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all civil & infrastructure project reviews ### What parking-structure project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review parking-structure projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the parking-structure project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a parking-structure review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next parking-structure set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Sports and recreation Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/sports-and-recreation/ Review sports and recreation drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for sports and recreation projects Check venues, fields, pools, spectator areas, accessibility, structure, specialty equipment, and site-system coordination. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for sports and recreation projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for sports and recreation projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, profiles, and utility coordination Compare stationing, alignments, inverts, elevations, slopes, crossings, structures, easements, and utility information. #### Civil-to-building interfaces Review grading, drainage, foundations, entries, accessibility, site utilities, equipment yards, paving, and landscape relationships. #### Structural and systems coordination Cross-check structures, clearances, loads, equipment, technology, power, lighting, fire protection, and maintenance access. #### Agency, phasing, and checklist review Apply owner standards, maintenance-of-traffic, operations, safety, permit, accessibility, and project-specific criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the sports and recreation project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all civil & infrastructure project reviews ### What sports and recreation project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review sports and recreation projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the sports and recreation project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a sports and recreation review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next sports and recreation set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Infrastructure Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/infrastructure/ Review infrastructure drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for infrastructure projects Review plans, profiles, utilities, structures, phasing, agency standards, site constraints, and multidisciplinary interfaces. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for infrastructure projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for infrastructure projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, profiles, and utility coordination Compare stationing, alignments, inverts, elevations, slopes, crossings, structures, easements, and utility information. #### Civil-to-building interfaces Review grading, drainage, foundations, entries, accessibility, site utilities, equipment yards, paving, and landscape relationships. #### Structural and systems coordination Cross-check structures, clearances, loads, equipment, technology, power, lighting, fire protection, and maintenance access. #### Agency, phasing, and checklist review Apply owner standards, maintenance-of-traffic, operations, safety, permit, accessibility, and project-specific criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the infrastructure project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all civil & infrastructure project reviews ### What infrastructure project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review infrastructure projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the infrastructure project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a infrastructure review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next infrastructure set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Renovation Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/renovations/ Review renovation drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for renovation projects Connect existing conditions, demolition, protection, phasing, temporary work, new construction, and occupied operations. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for renovation projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for renovation projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Plans, schedules, details, and specs Compare rooms, doors, finishes, equipment, ratings, dimensions, products, and performance criteria. #### Shell, core, and tenant coordination Review division of responsibility and physical interfaces across landlord, tenant, interiors, and consultant packages. #### Food service, retail, and hospitality systems Check equipment utilities, exhaust, plumbing, power, controls, clearances, ceilings, and specialty requirements. #### Brand, owner, and permit criteria Apply tenant criteria, prototypes, brand standards, owner checklists, accessibility criteria, and uploaded code sources. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the renovation project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all commercial project reviews ### What renovation project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review renovation projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the renovation project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a renovation review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next renovation set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # AI Plan Review for Historic-preservation Projects — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/projects/historic-preservation/ Review historic-preservation drawings, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources for coordination, consistency, and compliance questions. ## AI plan review for historic-preservation projects Compare surveys, preservation requirements, existing fabric, selective demolition, new systems, accessibility, and agency criteria. - Drawings - Specifications - Consultant sets - Checklists - Owner criteria - Code sources AI plan review for historic-preservation projects is a first-pass comparison of the documents that define the work. Groundbook AI cross-checks drawings, specifications, consultant packages, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources, then returns possible coordination and compliance questions with exact source references for qualified review. ### Common checks for historic-preservation projects Choose the project documents and review criteria that match the milestone. The scope can cover drawing coordination, specifications, checklists, and uploaded code sources. #### Agency and program requirements Compare rooms, functions, equipment, finishes, security, accessibility, operations, and owner standards with the drawings. #### Drawing and specification consistency Review materials, products, ratings, schedules, details, performance criteria, and responsibility across documents. #### Existing, demolition, and new work Cross-check survey information, protection, removals, phasing, preservation, structure, and new building-system interfaces. #### Checklist and uploaded code review Apply agency, permit, funding, accessibility, preservation, owner, and project-specific review criteria. ### Start a broader first pass in about 5 minutes #### Upload the project set Add the current drawings, specifications, consultant files, checklists, owner criteria, and uploaded code sources. #### Choose the checks Select the cross-file and requirement comparisons that fit the historic-preservation project and milestone. #### Verify with the team Review each possible issue with its evidence and route confirmed items to the responsible professionals. ### Review connected work with the same evidence-backed workflow Explore all government & civic project reviews ### What historic-preservation project teams ask **Can Groundbook AI review historic-preservation projects?** Yes. Upload the drawings, specifications, consultant documents, checklists, owner criteria, and code sources that define the historic-preservation project and choose the checks that matter to the team. **What documents should a historic-preservation review include?** Include the current drawing set, project specifications, relevant consultant packages, schedules, checklists, owner requirements, and uploaded code sources. The review can only compare information that is provided. **Does Groundbook AI replace professional review?** No. Groundbook AI surfaces possible issues with source references. Qualified architects, engineers, contractors, owners, specialists, and authorities remain responsible for every project decision. ### Give the next historic-preservation set a broader first pass Start a review yourself, or book time to talk through the project. --- # Security — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/security/ How Groundbook AI protects customer data through secure cloud infrastructure, encryption, access controls, and responsible data handling. ## Security at Groundbook AI Last updated: 2026-08-27 Groundbook AI processes construction drawings, specifications, calculations, and other project information. We use administrative, technical, and organizational safeguards designed to protect that information while operating the Service. ### 1. Cloud infrastructure and encryption - Our primary production application and customer data storage are hosted in the United States on Amazon Web Services (AWS). - Customer files, the production database, and database backups are encrypted at rest. - Data transmitted to and from the Service is encrypted using TLS. - Customer file storage and the production database are private and are not directly accessible from the public internet. ### 2. Identity and access controls - Groundbook AI verifies user identity and authentication before granting access to the application. - Project data is available only to the project owner and users granted access through the applicable organization or project. Other customers cannot access your projects. - Our production services use scoped AWS roles to limit access to the resources each service needs. Production secrets are stored in AWS Secrets Manager. - Single sign-on (SSO) and multi-factor authentication (MFA) are available upon request. Contact support@groundbook.ai to discuss your organization's requirements. ### 3. Customer data and AI providers - Commercial AI model providers used to process requests operate under terms that prohibit them from training their models on Customer Project Data. - Service providers may process information only to provide services to Groundbook and must protect it under their applicable contractual obligations. - We do not sell personal information or Customer Project Data, and we do not directly provide or show Customer Project Data to another customer. For details about Groundbook's internal model-training process, available choices, and data handling practices, see our Privacy Policy. ### 4. Application and deployment security - File uploads use time-limited URLs, and uploaded documents are validated before processing. - Our web application uses security headers that enforce HTTPS and help protect against framing, content-type confusion, and unnecessary browser permissions. - Web changes pass automated tests, linting, and a production build before deployment. - Production deployments use short-lived credentials, and production container images are deployed by immutable digest. ### 5. Backups and deletion Encrypted automated database backups and versioned object storage support recovery from user or system error. Deleting a project in the app removes it from the active workspace but is not a permanent-deletion request. To request permanent deletion of Customer Project Data, email support@groundbook.ai. For additional information about retention and deletion, see our Privacy Policy. ### 6. Report a security concern If you believe you have found a security issue involving Groundbook AI, email support@groundbook.ai with a description, steps to reproduce, and any affected URLs. Please do not include Customer Project Data or other sensitive information unless it is necessary to explain the issue. For other security questions or to discuss your organization's requirements, contact support@groundbook.ai. --- # Privacy Policy — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/legal/privacy-policy/ Groundbook AI Privacy Policy: how Matter0, Inc. collects, uses, shares, and protects information. ## Groundbook AI Privacy Policy Last updated: 2026-08-22 This Privacy Policy explains how Matter0, Inc. ("Matter0," "we," or "us"), makers of Groundbook AI, collects, uses, shares, and protects information when you use Groundbook AI, groundbook.ai, and our related services (collectively, the "Service"). ### 1. Information we collect We collect the following categories of information: - Account information: your name, work email address, company, login identifiers, and account settings. - Customer Project Data: construction drawings, specifications, calculations, page images, extracted facts, graph data, AI-generated findings and reports, audit trails, corrections, issue accept/reject decisions, comments, and other project-specific information submitted to or created through the Service. - Communications: messages and information you provide when you contact us for support, request deletion, opt out of model training, or otherwise communicate with us. - Usage and technical information: features used, interactions with the Service, diagnostics, browser and device information, IP address, and information needed to secure and operate the Service. - Payment information: purchase and transaction records. Payment card details are processed by our payment provider and are not stored by us. ### 2. How we use information We use information to: - provide, operate, secure, and support the Service; - process purchases and maintain transaction records; - review construction documents and generate project-specific findings and outputs; - respond to questions, investigate errors, and resolve processing failures; - evaluate and improve the accuracy, reliability, prompts, tools, routing, workflows, AI harness, and models used by Groundbook; - understand how the Service is used and develop new features; and - comply with law and protect the rights, safety, and security of our customers, our company, and others. We do not sell personal information or Customer Project Data. We do not use personal information for third-party advertising. ### 3. How project data improves Groundbook We use Customer Project Data and de-identified learning data in the following ways: - Service operation, support, and issue investigation: We process and, when necessary, review project data to deliver the Service, provide support, investigate errors, and verify the quality of findings. - Internal evaluation and AI harness improvement: We use project data to evaluate and benchmark accuracy and improve prompts, tools, routing, workflows, and other parts of our AI harness. This may include modified internal test copies with intentionally introduced errors. This use is necessary to provide and maintain a reliable Service and cannot be opted out of. - Groundbook model training: By default, we may use necessary drawing excerpts, corrections, issue decisions, comments, and de-identified learning data to train models developed and used internally by Groundbook to provide and improve the Service. This is Groundbook's internal model-training process, not training performed by third-party AI vendors. We do not send or share this Groundbook training data with third-party AI vendors for their model training. We never share or show this training data to other customers. Before training, we remove or mask personally identifiable information in title blocks and make reasonable efforts to remove or mask other information that identifies you, your company, or your project. You may opt out of future Groundbook model-training runs at any time by emailing support@groundbook.ai. After the opt-out takes effect, we will not use your data in future model-training runs. The opt-out does not reverse completed training or improvements and does not apply to service operation, support, internal evaluation, or AI harness improvement. Opting out may cause your experience and the precision and recall of findings to improve more slowly. ### 4. De-identified learning and abstracted knowledge We may create labels, failure types, evaluation results, performance metrics, and other learning signals that have been aggregated or de-identified so they do not identify you or your projects and do not reproduce Customer Project Data. We may also retain general technical or jurisdictional knowledge after removing customer, project, address, and drawing details. Raw corrections, comments, excerpts, and other project-specific records remain Customer Project Data until they meet this de-identification standard. ### 5. How we share information We do not directly provide or show your Customer Project Data to another customer. Another customer cannot see your projects or anything identifiable as yours. We share information only with service providers that help us operate the Service, including: - Amazon Web Services for cloud hosting and storage; - Stripe for payment processing; - analytics and operational service providers; and - commercial AI model providers used to process requests. These providers may process information only to provide services to us and must protect it under their applicable contractual obligations. Every AI model provider we use processes Customer Project Data under commercial API terms that prohibit it from training its models on that data. We may also disclose information where required by law or necessary to protect legal rights, safety, or security. ### 6. Data location and security Customer data is securely hosted in the United States using Amazon Web Services. We apply the safeguards described in this Privacy Policy regardless of where you are located. We use reasonable administrative, technical, and organizational safeguards designed to protect information against unauthorized access, loss, misuse, or alteration. No method of storage or transmission is completely secure. ### 7. Retention and deletion Deleting a project in the app removes it from your active workspace but is not a permanent-deletion request. We may retain recoverable copies to restore data lost through user or system error. To request permanent deletion of Customer Project Data, email support@groundbook.ai. We will confirm when permanent deletion is complete, except where law requires retention. De-identified labels, aggregate metrics, evaluation results, abstracted technical or jurisdictional knowledge, and improvements already incorporated into models or the AI harness survive permanent deletion because they no longer identify you or your projects. ### 8. Your choices and privacy rights You may email support@groundbook.ai to: - opt out of future Groundbook model-training runs; - request access to personal information we maintain about you; - request correction of inaccurate personal information; or - request deletion of personal information or Customer Project Data. Available rights may depend on where you live. We may need to verify your identity and authority before completing a request. We will respond in accordance with applicable law. ### 9. Changes to this Privacy Policy We may update this Privacy Policy as the Service changes. We will provide notice of material changes by email or through the Service before the changes take effect. ### 10. Contact us For privacy questions, model-training opt-outs, or permanent-deletion requests, contact support@groundbook.ai. --- # Terms of Service — Groundbook AI Source: https://groundbook.ai/legal/terms-of-service/ Groundbook AI Terms of Service governing accounts, payments, project data, acceptable use, and the Service. ## Groundbook AI Terms of Service Last updated: 2026-08-22 ### 1. Agreement These Terms of Service (the "Terms") are an agreement between Matter0, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Matter0," "we," or "us"), makers of the Groundbook AI software platform, and the customer accepting them ("Customer," "you"). By creating an account or using the Service, you accept these Terms on behalf of your organization and confirm you have authority to do so. ### 2. The Service These Terms govern Groundbook AI, our software platform that uses artificial intelligence to review construction documents (drawings, specifications, and related files) for conflicts, inconsistencies, and compliance issues, and presents findings with source evidence, together with the website groundbook.ai and related tools (collectively, the "Service"). The Service is an analysis tool, not professional engineering or architectural advice. Findings are informational. The design professional of record retains full professional responsibility for the design and for any decision made using the Service's output. We do not stamp, seal, approve, or certify designs, and no output constitutes a permit decision or code approval. ### 3. Accounts You are responsible for your account credentials and for all activity under your account. Accounts are for a single organization; you may not share access outside it. ### 4. Fees and payment The Service is pay-as-you-go: fees are based on usage (for example, per review, per sheet, or per project), at the rates stated on the pricing page or an order form at the time of purchase. - Payment is due before use. You either pay for usage at the time of purchase or buy prepaid credits, which are drawn down as you use the Service. There is no recurring subscription fee. - Prepaid credits are non-transferable and non-refundable except as required by law, and do not expire. - Fees are exclusive of taxes; you are responsible for applicable taxes other than our income taxes. - Fees for completed reviews are non-refundable except where these Terms provide otherwise. - We may change prices at any time; changes apply only to future purchases, never to usage already paid for or credits already purchased. ### 5. Customer Project Data and ownership "Customer Project Data" means the drawings, specifications, calculations, and other project materials you submit to the Service, together with project-specific data created through the Service. This includes page images, extracted facts and graph data, AI-generated issues and reports, audit trails, corrections, issue accept/reject decisions, and comments. - You retain all rights you have in materials you submit, and, as between you and us, you own project-specific outputs created for you. We claim no ownership of Customer Project Data. - You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to host, process, and display Customer Project Data solely to (a) provide and secure the Service, (b) provide support, and (c) improve Service quality as described in Section 6. All rights not granted are reserved by you. - You are responsible for having the rights to submit project materials, including documents belonging to your clients. "Derived Learning Data" means labels, failure types, evaluation results, performance metrics, and other learning signals that have been aggregated or de-identified so they do not identify you or your projects and do not reproduce Customer Project Data. Raw corrections, comments, excerpts, and other project-specific records remain Customer Project Data until they meet this standard. We own Derived Learning Data and abstracted technical or jurisdictional knowledge that does not identify you or your projects and does not reproduce Customer Project Data. ### 6. How we use your data This section is the core of these Terms. The commitments in Section 6.1 always apply. #### 6.1 Commitments that always apply - We never sell Customer Project Data or Derived Learning Data, and never disclose either to third parties except the subprocessors in Section 6.2 or where law requires. - No other customer of the Service can see your Customer Project Data, your projects, or anything identifiable as yours. - All data use under this section exists only to provide the Service to you and to improve the quality of the Service. It is never used to expose your data to anyone else. #### 6.2 Subprocessors We use third-party subprocessors to operate the Service, including cloud hosting and storage (Amazon Web Services), payment processing (Stripe), analytics, and AI model providers. Customer data is securely hosted in the United States using Amazon Web Services. We apply the safeguards described in these Terms regardless of where you are located. Every AI model provider we use processes Customer Project Data under commercial API terms that prohibit it from training its models on that data. A current subprocessor list is available on request, under confidentiality obligations. #### 6.3 Support, debugging, and issue investigation (always on) Our personnel may access and review your Customer Project Data and Derived Learning Data when needed to provide the Service to you: to respond to your support requests, investigate and fix errors or processing failures, and verify the quality of findings on your projects. This access is limited to personnel who need it for those purposes and is covered by the confidentiality obligations in Section 9. #### 6.4 Internal evaluation and harness improvement (always on) We use Customer Project Data and Derived Learning Data internally to evaluate and benchmark accuracy and to improve the prompts, tools, routing, workflows, and other parts of our AI harness. This includes creating modified internal test copies of documents, for example with intentionally introduced errors, to measure detection quality. Test copies are held to the same confidentiality as the originals. Results are disclosed only in aggregate, never in a form identifying you or your projects. This use is necessary to provide and maintain a reliable Service and cannot be opted out of. #### 6.5 Internal model training (on by default; opt out anytime) We use Customer Project Data, including necessary drawing excerpts, corrections, issue decisions, and comments, together with Derived Learning Data, to train models developed and used internally by Groundbook to provide and improve the Service. This is Groundbook's internal model-training process, not training performed by third-party AI vendors. We do not send or share this Groundbook training data with third-party AI vendors for their model training. We never share or show this training data to other customers. Before training, we remove or mask personally identifiable information contained in title blocks and make reasonable efforts to remove or mask other information that identifies you, your company, or your project. Training data remains confidential. You may opt out of this Section 6.5 at any time by emailing support@groundbook.ai. After your opt-out takes effect, we will not use your data in future model-training runs. Opting out does not require us to retrain existing models or reverse completed improvements. Because customer feedback helps our models improve, opting out may cause your experience and the precision and recall of findings to improve more slowly. #### 6.6 Retention and deletion - To request permanent deletion of Customer Project Data, email support@groundbook.ai. We will confirm when permanent deletion is complete, except where law requires retention. - De-identified labels, aggregate metrics, evaluation results, abstracted technical or jurisdictional knowledge, and improvements already incorporated into models or the AI harness survive permanent deletion because they no longer identify you or your projects. #### 6.7 Personal information Our Privacy Policy explains what personal information we collect, how we use and share it, where it is processed, how to exercise available privacy rights, and how to contact us. ### 7. Acceptable use You may not use the Service to violate law or third-party rights; submit content you lack rights to; attempt to extract our models or reverse engineer the Service; resell the Service without a written agreement; or use output to represent that a design has been approved by any authority. ### 8. Our IP and feedback We own the Service, its software, models, and all improvements. If you send general suggestions or feedback about the Service, we may use them without obligation. Project-specific corrections, comments, and other feedback remain Customer Project Data and are handled under Sections 5 and 6. Nothing in this section transfers any Customer Project Data to us. ### 9. Confidentiality Each party will protect the other's non-public information with at least reasonable care and use it only to perform under these Terms. Customer Project Data is our confidentiality obligation regardless of marking. ### 10. Warranties and disclaimers We warrant that we will provide the Service with reasonable skill and care. Otherwise, the Service is provided "as is." We do not warrant that the Service will find every issue in a document set or that findings are free of error. AI-generated findings can be wrong or incomplete; you must independently verify findings before relying on them. ### 11. Limitation of liability Except for breaches of Section 6 or 9, or a party's willful misconduct: (a) neither party is liable for indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages, or lost profits; and (b) each party's total liability under these Terms is capped at the fees you paid to us in the 12 months before the event giving rise to the claim. ### 12. Indemnification We will defend you against any third-party claim alleging that the Service, as provided by us and used as permitted by these Terms, infringes that party's intellectual property rights, and we will pay damages finally awarded on that claim or settlements we approve. This does not apply to claims arising from Customer Project Data or from combining the Service with anything we did not provide. You will defend us against any third-party claim arising from Customer Project Data or from your use of the Service in violation of these Terms or applicable law, and you will pay damages finally awarded on that claim or settlements you approve. The party seeking defense must promptly notify the other, let the other control the defense, and reasonably cooperate. ### 13. Term and termination These Terms apply while you use the Service. Either party may terminate at any time; you remain responsible for accrued fees. Sections 5–6.6, as to committed uses, 8–12, and 14–15 survive termination. You may request permanent deletion under Section 6.6. ### 14. Changes to these Terms We may update these Terms with 30 days' notice for material changes by email or in-product notice. Continued use after the effective date is acceptance. We will not reduce the protections in Section 6.1 for existing Customer Project Data without your consent. ### 15. Governing law and disputes These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware, excluding conflict-of-law rules. Disputes will be resolved in the state or federal courts located in Delaware, and each party consents to that venue. ### 16. Miscellaneous Neither party may assign these Terms except to a successor in a merger or asset sale. If a provision is unenforceable, the rest remains in effect. These Terms plus any order form are the entire agreement. Notices to us: support@groundbook.ai. ---