Hotel: 186 Issues Flagged

About this review

InspectMind ran an AI plan review on this commercial set and returned 186 potential findings across Structural, Architectural, Fire Protection. The selected examples below show the document conflict, why it matters, and a suggested next step.

Project type

Commercial

Disciplines

Structural, Architectural, Fire Protection

Potential findings

186

Published examples

3

Published

2026-09-16

Evidence status

Selected findings marked useful in the source review record

What this review documents

Check that structural load criteria and building elevations agree before framing and truss design proceed.

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

1. Floor elevations differ across disciplines

   Structural / Architectural

   Critical

   Structural sections place the second floor two feet below the architectural sections. The third-floor values also differ, and the floor-to-floor dimensions do not reconcile as a simple datum change.

   Next step: Issue coordinated architectural and structural floor elevations.

2. Sprinkler support load basis needs clarification

   Structural / Fire Protection

   Critical

   A truss note specifies a 250-pound sprinkler support load without explicitly including the weight of water-filled piping. The review flagged the load basis for verification.

   Next step: Confirm the complete hanger load with the sprinkler designer and structural engineer.

3. Snow-load calculation uses a different input

   Structural

   Critical

   The stated ground snow load is 60 psf, while the displayed roof-load calculation substitutes 30 psf.

   Next step: Verify the governing snow-load inputs and recompute the roof load using the applicable factors.

Checkers used

• Structural Checker
• Architectural Checker
• Fire & Life Safety
• All checkers

Issue categories

Structural / Architectural

Structural / Architectural findings in the selected review excerpts.

Structural / Fire Protection

Structural / Fire Protection findings in the selected review excerpts.

Structural

Structural findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

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.