Sample AI plan review report
See what a finding gives your team
Explore nine selected AI findings from published project reviews. Follow a construction document review example from its sources to an illustrative response and the evidence a reviewer would need for closure.
This is a selection of anonymized summaries, not a complete report from one project. Severity is shown only where the published case specifies it. Findings are review prompts; final design decisions and outcomes are not represented here.
9 selected findings
Door schedule and separation requirements disagreeWaterfront hotel
Sleeping-unit entry doors opening into an interior lobby were marked unrated, while the surrounding separation called for protected openings.
Why it matters
Door procurement and the fire-separation strategy could proceed from incompatible requirements.
Sources behind the question
Door schedule
The entry-door rating recorded in the schedule.
Floor plan and code references
Where the doors open, the surrounding separation, and the referenced opening-protection requirements.
What the reviewer should verify
- Locate each affected door on the plan and in the schedule.
- Confirm the applicable code edition, separation, opening requirements, and any exceptions.
- Have the responsible designer reconcile the schedule, wall information, and related details.
An illustrative review record
Worked example: write the response and verify closure
The finding and screenshot above come from the published hotel review. The response below is an editable illustration of a review record, not a reported project decision or completed correction.
1. Ask the question
The entry-door schedule and the surrounding separation appear to state different protection requirements. Please confirm the governing condition, applicable requirement and exceptions, then identify the schedule, assembly, and hardware information that must agree.
2. Record the designer’s response
Decision: [accepted / rejected / more information needed] Governing requirement and reasoning: [source, edition, condition, and any applicable exception] Affected documents: [file, sheet or section, location, and revision] Responsible designer: [role] Next action and issue date: [action and date]
3. Check the evidence before closing
- The responsible reviewer has documented which requirement applies and why.
- The issued door schedule, plan/assembly references, and related hardware or specification information agree with that decision.
- Any other affected openings and dependent details have been checked.
- The review log identifies the revised issue, source references, verifier, and verification date. If no change is needed, it preserves the evidence supporting that conclusion.
Adapted from the waterfront hotel case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingRailing details refer to an incomplete design requirementWaterfront hotel
Architectural notes specified a guard and handrail load below the adopted requirement. Structural details referred back to those notes without stating the governing load.
Why it matters
Railing design and fabrication could rely on incomplete or inconsistent criteria.
Sources behind the question
Architectural notes
The stated guard and handrail design criteria.
Structural details and code references
The cross-reference to the architectural notes and the requirement used in the review.
What the reviewer should verify
- Trace the reference from the structural detail to the architectural note.
- Ask the responsible engineer to confirm the governing criteria and application.
- Coordinate the corrected criteria across notes, details, and any fabrication information.
Adapted from the waterfront hotel case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingKitchen exhaust support needs a closer lookWaterfront hotel
A commercial-kitchen grease exhaust fan was shown on a wood platform without a documented clearance or noncombustible support condition.
Why it matters
The support assembly could need redesign after equipment coordination or code review.
Sources behind the question
Equipment support detail
The platform material and the fan support arrangement.
Mechanical and code references
The installation conditions and supporting requirements to verify.
What the reviewer should verify
- Read the complete fan and support details, including referenced notes.
- Confirm the selected equipment, installation instructions, and applicable requirements.
- Resolve the support material and clearance with the responsible mechanical and structural designers.
Adapted from the waterfront hotel case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingExhaust and outside-air intake use different separation criteriaWaterfront hotel
The roof plan showed a separation based on one exhaust rule, while the outside-air intake had a different requirement for the kitchen exhaust classification.
Why it matters
Rooftop equipment could require relocation or a documented design justification.
Sources behind the question
Roof equipment plan
The relative locations of the exhaust outlet and outside-air intake.
Exhaust and intake requirements
The classifications and criteria used for each side of the comparison.
What the reviewer should verify
- Identify the actual exhaust classification and both equipment locations.
- Check the applicable intake and discharge rules together, including permitted alternatives.
- Have the designer document the coordinated layout or supporting calculation.
Adapted from the waterfront hotel case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingDeferred fire-protection packages are not fully listedWaterfront hotel
Notes and approval conditions required sprinkler, alarm, and waterfront standpipe systems, but the deferred-submittal list identified only a different system.
Why it matters
Required design packages and the responsibility for submitting them could remain unclear.
Sources behind the question
Project notes and approval conditions
The fire-protection systems described as required.
Deferred-submittal list
The packages actually identified in the drawing set.
What the reviewer should verify
- Compare the full deferred-work list with the notes and approval conditions.
- Confirm the required packages and review path with the project team and relevant authority.
- Reconcile the drawing list and record who will prepare and submit each package.
Adapted from the waterfront hotel case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingThe governing structural revision is unclearMixed-use residential
Two structural schedules carried different requirements, while the set did not clearly establish which version governed or update all downstream references.
Why it matters
Different teams could price, detail, or install against different requirements.
Sources behind the question
Structural schedules
The requirements recorded in each version.
Issue records and downstream references
Which documents govern the review and where the schedules are referenced.
What the reviewer should verify
- Check the issued document register and revision information.
- Confirm the controlling schedule with the responsible designer.
- Update the dependent notes and details so the issued package states one coordinated requirement.
Adapted from the mixed-use residential case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingStructural and mechanical floor elevations differMixed-use residential
Structural and mechanical plans showed different elevations for the same floor area, creating a cross-discipline coordination question.
Why it matters
Openings, drainage, clearances, and tie-ins could be coordinated to incompatible datums.
Sources behind the question
Structural plan
The floor elevation and reference datum.
Mechanical plan
The corresponding elevation and any offset or datum convention.
What the reviewer should verify
- Confirm that both callouts describe the same location and level.
- Check the datum, units, finish-versus-structure convention, and governing revisions.
- Ask the affected designers to reconcile the elevations and review dependent connections.
Adapted from the mixed-use residential case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingA required opening appears in only one disciplineMixed-use residential
A sump shown in the mechanical/plumbing design was not represented in the corresponding structural slab and footing area.
Why it matters
The omission could require late structural coordination, rerouting, or another corrective design decision.
Sources behind the question
Mechanical/plumbing plan
The sump location and the opening or recess it requires.
Structural slab and footing information
The corresponding area and any referenced opening details.
What the reviewer should verify
- Locate the sump and required opening across both disciplines.
- Look for a separate opening schedule, detail, or delegated design note before concluding it is missing.
- Have the designers resolve the interface and update the coordinated set.
Adapted from the mixed-use residential case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingPlans, schedules, and controls use different equipment dataMixed-use residential
Equipment tags, quantities, duties, materials, and operating sequences did not consistently reconcile across plans, diagrams, schedules, and specifications.
Why it matters
Purchasing, controls programming, and commissioning could proceed from conflicting information.
Sources behind the question
Plans and equipment schedules
The equipment identity and stated requirements.
Diagrams, specifications, and controls
The related material, duty, and operating information.
What the reviewer should verify
- Match the equipment tag across every relevant document.
- Separate actual conflicts from differences in units, duty definitions, or operating modes.
- Have the designer confirm the intended requirement and reconcile the affected documents.
Adapted from the mixed-use residential case study. Source descriptions are summaries; consult the project documents for exact references.
Link to this findingQuestions, answered
FAQs
How can I verify a finding?
Each finding links to supporting text, a schedule row, a callout, or a drawing fragment. Open the referenced evidence, assess the issue in context, and decide on the appropriate action with your project team.
Is this a complete project report?
No. These are nine selected summaries from two published, anonymized Groundbook reviews. They are grouped here to illustrate the output. The complete project reports and source drawing packages are not included.
Are the findings confirmed construction defects?
They are potential issues identified for review. The published cases do not establish final reviewer decisions or realized project outcomes. Verify the source context and applicable requirements before acting on a finding.
Is the worked response an actual project outcome?
No. The finding and screenshot come from the published hotel review. The response and closure criteria are illustrative templates that show how a team could document its decision; no completed correction is claimed.
Why do some examples have no severity?
The published case study did not specify an individual severity for those examples. This sample preserves that uncertainty instead of assigning a new rating.
Keep exploring
Continue your review
Turn findings into decisions
Turn AI plan review findings into a useful review queue. Verify the evidence, assess consequence and urgency, group duplicates, and record designer decisions.
ExploreHow to review construction documents
Run a construction document review from scope and document register to source-backed comments, designer responses, and verified closure. Includes a free review log.
ExploreAI construction document review
AI construction document review for drawings, specifications, and requirements. Find potential conflicts, verify source evidence, and coordinate the next issue.
ExploreBring your next set into focus
Set up a review or talk through your project with our team.