Levels and datums
Compare corresponding floor elevations and reference levels. Distinguish finish levels, structural levels, units, and datum conventions before calling a difference a conflict.
Cross-discipline coordination
Find the gaps between disciplines
Review the places where one consultant’s design depends on another’s. Groundbook helps identify conflicting levels, missing openings, inconsistent equipment information, and references that do not carry across the set.
Where to focus
What to bring into the review
Openings and structural interfaces
Trace sumps, sleeves, penetrations, and equipment needs to the slab, framing, or opening information they depend on. Look for a separate detail before concluding something is absent.
Equipment identity and requirements
Match tags across plans, schedules, diagrams, and specifications. Investigate inconsistent quantities, duties, connections, or operating requirements.
Notes and referenced details
Follow a design instruction into the discipline that must act on it. Identify a broken reference or a requirement that is stated in one place but unresolved in the other.
Inside Groundbook
Put the relevant disciplines in one review
Upload the consultant files for the same issue and identify which files to check. Include the details and schedules needed to understand their interfaces, with any older background documents clearly marked as references.
A practical workflow
From the first pass to a decision
Choose the interfaces that matter
State the scope in the review instructions: for example, structural openings against plumbing requirements or architectural notes against structural details.
Verify both sides of a finding
Confirm the location, equipment tag, datum, and revision. The same-looking label on two sheets is not enough to establish that both describe the same condition.
Resolve the shared requirement
Assign the question to the affected designers. Record the agreed requirement and check that each dependent document reflects the decision.
From a published project review
Structural and mechanical floor elevations differ
Structural and mechanical plans showed different elevations for the same floor area, creating a cross-discipline coordination question.
Read the findingDefine the scope with your team
This is a document coordination review. PDF findings should be assessed alongside the team’s models, calculations, surveys, and design knowledge when those are needed to resolve an interface.
Questions, answered
FAQs
How is this different from checking one discipline at a time?
The review focuses on relationships between documents: for example, whether a plumbing requirement appears in the corresponding structural area or whether two disciplines use the same floor elevation.
Is PDF coordination the same as a 3D clash test?
No. This workflow reviews requirements and relationships expressed in the submitted documents. Use the project’s model coordination process for geometric clash detection and verify document findings against the full design context.
What makes a coordination finding actionable?
It identifies the affected location or component, shows the conflicting or missing information on each side, explains the possible consequence, and states what the designers need to confirm.
Keep exploring
Continue your review
Floor plan review
Check floor plans for conflicting dimensions, missing openings, and schedule mismatches. Groundbook AI connects layout findings to the drawings behind them.
ExploreMEP coordination checklist
Review MEP equipment, connections, openings, levels, and access across PDF drawing sets. Includes a 12-part coordination checklist and free editable CSV.
ExploreCommon coordination errors
Examples of gaps across consultant documents.
ExploreBring your next set into focus
Set up a review or talk through your project with our team.