InspectMind AI logo InspectMind

Tenant Fit-Out: 92 Issues Flagged

Check the fit-out scope against inherited shell-building notes, storefront dimensions, and the issued specification set.

Anonymized review · Published 2026-09-16

First $100 covered. Enterprise and volume pricing

Potential findings
92
Disciplines
2
Published examples
3
Critical or high examples shown
3

About this review

InspectMind ran an AI plan review on this tenant improvement set and returned 92 potential findings across Architectural, Fire Protection. The selected examples below show the document conflict, why it matters, and a suggested next step.

Project type
Tenant Improvement
Disciplines
Architectural, Fire Protection
Potential findings
92
Published examples
3
Published
2026-09-16
Evidence status
Selected findings marked useful in the source review record

What this review documents

Check the fit-out scope against inherited shell-building notes, storefront dimensions, and the issued specification set.

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.

Key findings

  1. Specification sheets are absent from the reviewed set

    General & Coordination

    High

    Six specification pages listed in a 25-page index were not found in the submitted documents.

    Next step: Provide the missing specifications or correct the index before relying on cross-document review.

  2. Storefront width differs by one foot

    Architectural

    High

    The floor plan dimensions the new storefront at 48 feet 5 5/8 inches, while enlarged views show 47 feet 5 5/8 inches.

    Next step: Resolve the overall width before storefront shop drawings or fabrication.

  3. Shell-building note conflicts with fit-out code data

    Architectural / Fire Protection

    High

    A life-safety note leaves occupant load to a future tenant permit, while the same set identifies a tenant fit-out and calculates 48 occupants.

    Next step: Update the scope note and confirm the occupant-load and exit assumptions.

Issue categories

General & Coordination
General & Coordination findings in the selected review excerpts.
Architectural
Architectural findings in the selected review excerpts.
Architectural / Fire Protection
Architectural / Fire Protection findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

Specification sheets are absent from the reviewed set

General & Coordination

High

Summary: Six specification pages listed in a 25-page index were not found in the submitted documents.

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: Provide the missing specifications or correct the index before relying on cross-document review.

RFI draft: Provide the missing specifications or correct the index before relying on cross-document review.

Storefront width differs by one foot

Architectural

High

Summary: The floor plan dimensions the new storefront at 48 feet 5 5/8 inches, while enlarged views show 47 feet 5 5/8 inches.

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: Resolve the overall width before storefront shop drawings or fabrication.

RFI draft: Resolve the overall width before storefront shop drawings or fabrication.

Shell-building note conflicts with fit-out code data

Architectural / Fire Protection

High

Summary: A life-safety note leaves occupant load to a future tenant permit, while the same set identifies a tenant fit-out and calculates 48 occupants.

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: Update the scope note and confirm the occupant-load and exit assumptions.

RFI draft: Update the scope note and confirm the occupant-load and exit assumptions.

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.

Similar AI plan review results by project type and discipline.

Browse all case studies