Monthly plans start with 30 days free — up to 50 sheets, card required, cancel anytime. Start your free month →
Real findings from a commissioned architectural louver package, run through the same review every customer package gets. See what was flagged and where it appeared on the drawings.
The sample review includes a marked-up PDF and an Excel comment log. The findings are prioritized by severity, and any items that require additional review by a licensed design professional are clearly identified.
Published with the fabricator’s permission. Customer packages are never published.
Issues ranging from conflicting dimensions to missing connection information.
Plumb reviewed the full drawing package and identified issues ranging from conflicting dimensions and material callouts to missing connection information and items requiring engineering review.
Package
Architectural Louvers
Jul Tec, Inc. · Rev 1 · 7 sheets · Buildability Review
Findings identified
24
1 Critical · 20 Major · 3 Minor — every one marked on its sheet and listed in the log.
PE-Review-Required
2
Flagged [PE] — findings that need engineering judgment are isolated for a licensed design professional rather than answered.
Here’s one example
Example finding
The elevation on sheet 100.01 and the detail on sheet 100.02 call for louvers bent from 12 Ga. aluminum sheet; a detail on sheet 100.01 calls for 16 Ga. — roughly 0.081" against 0.051".
Why it matters
The shop should not have to decide which material callout governs once fabrication starts.
Plumb places numbered findings directly on the applicable sheet so your team can quickly see what was flagged and where it was found.
Severity, sheet references, and items requiring engineering review are clearly identified.
An issue likely to stop or misdirect fabrication if it is not addressed.
A significant gap or conflict; a correction, clarification, or RFI is likely.
A smaller inconsistency or omission worth cleaning up.
A documentation suggestion or clarification opportunity.
Context the reviewer may want; no change implied.
A flag, not a severity: engineering judgment is required, so the finding is isolated for the appropriate licensed design professional.
| # | Sheet | Severity | PE | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 100.01 | Major | Sheet 100.01 Louver Elevation — left-side overall height labeled '121'-0"' is implausible; right side reads '11'-0" [132"]' | |
| 7 | 100.01, 100.02 | Critical | PE | Tapcon anchor embedment depth into existing masonry not specified |
| 8 | 100.01, 100.02 | Major | Louver blade gauge called out three ways — 12 Ga. (100.01 Elevation 1), 16 Ga. (100.01 Detail 3), 12 Ga. (100.02 Detail 2) | |
| 9 | 100.01 | Major | Sheet 100.01 — detail callout references '1/400.01' which does not exist in the package | |
| 13 | 100.01, 100.02 | Major | PE | Dissimilar metal contact — carbon steel Tapcon through aluminum frame into masonry; no isolation specified |
| 16 | 100.02 | Minor | Sheet 100.02 — stray unintelligible text string 'RDGSHSSHNDRTHDR' in drawing area |
Every finding is also included in the Excel comment log, giving your team a simple way to sort, filter, assign, and track the review.
No new platform to learn. Just the marked-up drawings and a comment log your team can work from.
See what Plumb flags. Compare it against your team’s review. Decide if another review pass belongs in your workflow.
The sample review includes a marked-up PDF and an Excel comment log.
Plumb provides systematic documentation review. It is not engineering, does not certify code compliance, and does not replace review by your licensed design professionals.
