InspectMind AI logo InspectMind

Wastewater Support Building: 51 Issues Flagged

Review pre-engineered building loads, stair geometry, and the governing code references before delegated design.

Anonymized review · Published 2026-09-16

First $100 covered. Enterprise and volume pricing

Potential findings
51
Disciplines
2
Published examples
3
Critical or high examples shown
2

About this review

InspectMind ran an AI plan review on this infrastructure set and returned 51 potential findings across Structural, Architectural. The selected examples below show the document conflict, why it matters, and a suggested next step.

Project type
Infrastructure
Disciplines
Structural, Architectural
Potential findings
51
Published examples
3
Published
2026-09-16
Evidence status
Selected findings marked useful in the source review record

What this review documents

Review pre-engineered building loads, stair geometry, and the governing code references before delegated design.

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. Suspended-load allowances differ

    Structural

    High

    Drawings list seven psf of collateral load, while the specification separately lists twelve psf for suspended MEP and five psf for ceilings.

    Next step: Reconcile the required load cases and allocations with the building-system supplier.

  2. Stair tread dimension is labeled maximum

    Structural / Architectural

    High

    A stair detail labels the tread run as eleven inches maximum. The review flagged whether a minimum dimension was intended.

    Next step: Have the architect confirm the applicable geometry and correct the minimum/maximum notation.

  3. Governing code edition differs between notes

    Structural

    Medium

    Different structural notes cite different editions of the same state building code.

    Next step: Confirm the governing edition and amendments and make the document references consistent.

Issue categories

Structural
Structural findings in the selected review excerpts.
Structural / Architectural
Structural / Architectural findings in the selected review excerpts.

Review details and suggested questions

Suspended-load allowances differ

Structural

High

Summary: Drawings list seven psf of collateral load, while the specification separately lists twelve psf for suspended MEP and five psf for ceilings.

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 required load cases and allocations with the building-system supplier.

RFI draft: Reconcile the required load cases and allocations with the building-system supplier.

Stair tread dimension is labeled maximum

Structural / Architectural

High

Summary: A stair detail labels the tread run as eleven inches maximum. The review flagged whether a minimum dimension was intended.

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: Have the architect confirm the applicable geometry and correct the minimum/maximum notation.

RFI draft: Have the architect confirm the applicable geometry and correct the minimum/maximum notation.

Governing code edition differs between notes

Structural

Medium

Summary: Different structural notes cite different editions of the same state building code.

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 governing edition and amendments and make the document references consistent.

RFI draft: Confirm the governing edition and amendments and make the document references consistent.

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