InspectMind AI logo InspectMind
ArchitecturalMechanicalElectricalPlumbing

Residential Renovation: 75 Issues Flagged

Check that architectural plans, sections, ventilation schedules, and wet-area details describe the same renovation scope.

75
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

Check that architectural plans, sections, ventilation schedules, and wet-area details describe the same renovation scope.

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

Fireplace fuel type changes between views

Architectural / Mechanical / Electrical / Plumbing

High

The floor plan specifies a gas fireplace insert while the building section at the same location specifies an electric insert.

Next step: Confirm the appliance and coordinate gas, power, venting, and architectural details.

Ridge-vent quantities do not reconcile

Architectural

High

The attic schedule credits 9.13 square feet of ridge ventilation, while the two quantified roof-plan segments total 5.00 square feet.

Next step: Reconcile the provided ventilation area with the roof layout and product rating.

Shower waterproofing extent differs from specification

Architectural / Plumbing

High

The specification calls for waterproofing to extend four feet beyond a curbless shower threshold. The detail appears to terminate the pan membrane at the threshold.

Next step: Clarify the required membrane continuity and adjacent-floor waterproofing detail.

Issue categories

Architectural / Mechanical / Electrical / Plumbing
Architectural / Mechanical / Electrical / Plumbing findings in the selected review excerpts.
Architectural
Architectural findings in the selected review excerpts.
Architectural / Plumbing
Architectural / Plumbing findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

Fireplace fuel type changes between views
Architectural / Mechanical / Electrical / Plumbing
High

Summary: The floor plan specifies a gas fireplace insert while the building section at the same location specifies an electric insert.

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 appliance and coordinate gas, power, venting, and architectural details.

RFI draft: Confirm the appliance and coordinate gas, power, venting, and architectural details.

Ridge-vent quantities do not reconcile
Architectural
High

Summary: The attic schedule credits 9.13 square feet of ridge ventilation, while the two quantified roof-plan segments total 5.00 square feet.

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 the provided ventilation area with the roof layout and product rating.

RFI draft: Reconcile the provided ventilation area with the roof layout and product rating.

Shower waterproofing extent differs from specification
Architectural / Plumbing
High

Summary: The specification calls for waterproofing to extend four feet beyond a curbless shower threshold. The detail appears to terminate the pan membrane at the threshold.

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: Clarify the required membrane continuity and adjacent-floor waterproofing detail.

RFI draft: Clarify the required membrane continuity and adjacent-floor waterproofing detail.

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