InspectMind AI logo InspectMind
MechanicalFire ProtectionElectricalPlumbing

Elementary School: 172 Issues Flagged

Compare school equipment schedules with controls specifications and the document index before coordinating MEP installation.

172
Potential findings
4
Disciplines
3
Published examples
Start with $100 creditSee the findings

Enterprise & volume pricing

Anonymized review · Published 2026-09-16

What this review documents

Compare school equipment schedules with controls specifications and the document index before coordinating MEP installation.

The documented result is a set of review findings. This case study does not establish that corrections were completed or that savings were realized. The examples below were marked useful in the source review record; they have been paraphrased to remove identifying details.

Open the sample report →See pricing →Read our measurement definitions →

Key findings

Smoke-detector scope differs

Mechanical / Fire Protection / Electrical

Critical

Mechanical schedules call for return-air smoke detection on systems above 2,000 CFM, while the controls specification calls for both supply and return detection.

Next step: Reconcile detector locations and the associated controls sequence.

Drawing index lists unavailable pages

General & Coordination

High

The review compared 133 indexed pages and flagged three as missing, one as mismatched, and seven with minor title differences.

Next step: Confirm whether the missing pages were omitted from the upload or from the issued set.

Water-heater energy source conflicts

Plumbing / Mechanical

High

A plumbing plan routes gas to water-heating equipment, but the specification describes residential electric water heaters.

Next step: Confirm the intended heater and coordinate its fuel, power, and utility connections.

Issue categories

Mechanical / Fire Protection / Electrical
Mechanical / Fire Protection / Electrical findings in the selected review excerpts.
General & Coordination
General & Coordination findings in the selected review excerpts.
Plumbing / Mechanical
Plumbing / Mechanical findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

Smoke-detector scope differs
Mechanical / Fire Protection / Electrical
Critical

Summary: Mechanical schedules call for return-air smoke detection on systems above 2,000 CFM, while the controls specification calls for both supply and return detection.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Reconcile detector locations and the associated controls sequence.

RFI draft: Reconcile detector locations and the associated controls sequence.

Drawing index lists unavailable pages
General & Coordination
High

Summary: The review compared 133 indexed pages and flagged three as missing, one as mismatched, and seven with minor title differences.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the missing pages were omitted from the upload or from the issued set.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the missing pages were omitted from the upload or from the issued set.

Water-heater energy source conflicts
Plumbing / Mechanical
High

Summary: A plumbing plan routes gas to water-heating equipment, but the specification describes residential electric water heaters.

Why it matters: This discrepancy leaves the design team or contractor with conflicting instructions. Resolve the governing requirement before relying on the affected documents.

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended heater and coordinate its fuel, power, and utility connections.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended heater and coordinate its fuel, power, and utility connections.

Anonymized, paraphrased excerpts from a completed project review. These three examples were marked “good catch” in the source review record; that label is feedback, not independent validation. The project total excludes duplicate-group members, dismissed findings, wrong finds, and insufficient-reference findings. Only selected excerpts are published. Customer identity, project address, source identifiers, and private drawings are omitted. Corrections, permit outcomes, and financial savings have not been independently verified. A qualified professional should assess each finding against the complete project documents.

Related case studies

Similar AI plan review results by project type and discipline. Browse all case studies

First $100 covered

Want this on your next set?

Start with the first $100 covered. See cited issues in hours, no call required.

  • Evidence-linked findings
  • 5+ issues or full refund
  • Results in hours

5+ issues or full refund · No demo required

View all case studies|See pricing