InspectMind AI logo InspectMind
Civil

Subdivision Improvements: 97 Issues Flagged

Compare utility material notes, pipe profiles, and the sheet index before procuring buried infrastructure.

97
Potential findings
1
Disciplines
3
Published examples
Start with $100 creditSee the findings

Enterprise & volume pricing

Anonymized review · Published 2026-09-16

What this review documents

Compare utility material notes, pipe profiles, and the sheet index before procuring buried infrastructure.

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

Sheet index and utility pages disagree

General & Coordination

High

The index audit flagged one missing page and six mismatches in a 31-page indexed set. Several pages labeled as planting or irrigation corresponded to utility plans.

Next step: Reconcile sheet names and confirm that the intended review set is complete.

Water-main material designation conflicts

Civil

High

A 10-inch water-main note specifies SDR-35 pipe while the accompanying utility standard calls for AWWA C900 PVC.

Next step: Confirm the pressure-pipe requirement and revise the plan or standard reference.

Storm pipe class differs between plan and profile

Civil

High

The same 140-foot storm-drain run is called Class III reinforced concrete pipe on one drawing and Class V on another.

Next step: Confirm the required pipe class for the loading and installation conditions.

Issue categories

General & Coordination
General & Coordination findings in the selected review excerpts.
Civil
Civil findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

Sheet index and utility pages disagree
General & Coordination
High

Summary: The index audit flagged one missing page and six mismatches in a 31-page indexed set. Several pages labeled as planting or irrigation corresponded to utility plans.

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 sheet names and confirm that the intended review set is complete.

RFI draft: Reconcile sheet names and confirm that the intended review set is complete.

Water-main material designation conflicts
Civil
High

Summary: A 10-inch water-main note specifies SDR-35 pipe while the accompanying utility standard calls for AWWA C900 PVC.

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 pressure-pipe requirement and revise the plan or standard reference.

RFI draft: Confirm the pressure-pipe requirement and revise the plan or standard reference.

Storm pipe class differs between plan and profile
Civil
High

Summary: The same 140-foot storm-drain run is called Class III reinforced concrete pipe on one drawing and Class V on another.

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 required pipe class for the loading and installation conditions.

RFI draft: Confirm the required pipe class for the loading and installation conditions.

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