How to Reduce Plan Check Comments: A Pre-Submission QA Guide for AEC Teams

Why plan check comments keep coming back

The pattern repeats across project types and jurisdictions because the underlying causes are consistent. Plan check comments come back on resubmittal not because the first round was incomplete, but because correction rounds address flagged issues without resolving the coordination and documentation gaps that generated them.

The most common comment triggers

The triggers that generate the most plan check comments are consistent across commercial submissions. Incomplete title sheet information and egress paths not fully documented on floor plans appear in nearly every first-round comment set.

Occupancy separation not shown at all required rated assemblies, structural and architectural sheets showing conflicting information, and notes that cite code sections without demonstrating compliance round out the five most frequent triggers.

Why a complete drawing set still gets comments

A complete drawing set can still get comments because completeness and coordination are not the same thing. A set can include every required sheet and still contain 40 coordination errors that stop a plans examiner.

The examiner is checking the drawings against the code, not against each other, so coordination errors that create code violations get flagged, while those that do not may pass.

Pre-submission QA: what it is and when to run it

Pre-submission QA is a distinct workflow step in which the design team reviews the construction document set against applicable code and jurisdictional requirements before submission to the AHJ. It is not the same as a plan review conducted by the building department.

For that distinction, see plan check vs plan review. Its purpose is to identify and resolve the same categories of issues a plans examiner will flag before they become correction comments that extend the permit schedule.

The difference between design review and pre-submission QA

Design review checks whether the design intent is correct. Pre-submission QA checks whether the drawings are code-compliant and internally coordinated across the permit set. Many firms treat final design review as sufficient, but it is not the same as a submission-readiness review.

When the two are conflated, the submission goes to the AHJ carrying coordination and compliance gaps that internal review would have caught. The result is a correction round that delays the permit schedule by weeks, not days, depending on the jurisdiction's resubmittal queue.

The right stage to run pre-submission QA

Pre-submission QA should be run at 100% CDs before submission, not during design development.

Earlier review helps catch design issues, while CD-stage review catches submission-specific issues such as missing calculations, an incomplete title sheet, and unresolved coordination gaps between disciplines.

Some firms also run it at 90% CDs so there is still time to correct issues before the set is finalised.

The five categories that generate most plan check comments

Each of the five categories below maps to a specific type of correction note. Recognising the pattern is what allows a pre-submission check to target the right documents before the set goes out.

Code compliance gaps

Example: a tenant improvement changes from Group B to Group A-2, but the drawing notes do not identify the occupancy change or the code path triggered by it, leaving the plans examiner unable to verify egress capacity, occupant load, or sprinkler implications.

A typical correction note reads: occupancy group and applicable code sections not identified on drawings.

Drawing coordination errors

Example: the floor plan identifies a 2-hour rated corridor assembly, while the wall type schedule lists that same condition as a 1-hour partition.

The plans examiner flags the discrepancy because the documents are internally contradictory and cannot be permitted as submitted.

Incomplete or missing documentation

Example: structural calculations are referenced on the title sheet as “to be provided under separate permit,” but they are not identified as a deferred submittal under the applicable code section.

The plans examiner cannot approve the set without the calculations or a properly identified deferred submittal.

Accessibility and egress deficiencies

Example: the site plan shows an accessible route from the public way to the building entrance, but the slope is not dimensioned, so the plans examiner cannot verify the 5% maximum running slope requirement. This is one of the most common commercial review comments and is exactly the kind of issue an accessibility plan review should catch before submission.

Spec-to-drawing conflicts

Example: the exterior cladding specification calls for one fire-rating class, while the architectural elevation identifies a material that carries a different rating in the manufacturer's data. The plans examiner flags the conflict because both the specifications and drawings are part of the permitted document set; for a deeper breakdown, see spec vs drawing conflicts.

A pre-submission QA checklist for AEC teams

A pre-submission QA checklist should be structured around four specific review areas that a project architect can run directly or delegate to a project engineer. Each check should focus on concrete code, coordination, and documentation issues that need to be verified before the set goes to the AHJ.

Structural and architectural coordination check

Verify that the floor plan column grid matches the structural framing plan, that all rated wall assemblies on the architectural plans have a corresponding wall type in the wall type schedule, and that beam and column locations on the structural framing plan match reflected ceiling plan clearance assumptions. These are the three highest-frequency coordination gaps on commercial projects.

Code compliance and occupancy verification

Verify that the title sheet identifies the occupancy group and applicable code editions, that occupant load calculations are shown, and that required exit widths are dimensioned. Verify that any mixed-occupancy conditions are identified with the applicable separation method.

Accessibility and egress audit

Verify that the accessible route is dimensioned for slope, the accessible parking count meets the applicable table, and reach ranges are shown at reception counters and service windows. Verify that door hardware is shown as lever-type where required. An ADA checker can confirm these requirements are met across the full set before submission.

Drawing index and title sheet completeness

Verify that the drawing index lists every sheet in the set, that all deferred submittals are identified with the applicable code section, and that the general notes reference the correct adopted code edition for the jurisdiction. This is the most frequently overlooked pre-submission check.

How AI pre-submission review reduces comment rounds

The checklist above is what a thorough manual review is supposed to cover before submission. AI pre-submission review adds scale, simultaneous cross-referencing across all sheets, and code citation on every flagged issue, which helps teams catch the same review categories more completely before they turn into comment rounds.

What AI checks that manual QA misses

AI can cross-reference the wall type schedule against every instance of that wall type across 50 plan sheets simultaneously. A project architect running a manual check on a 200-sheet CD set cannot do this at the same coverage level.

The same applies to spec-to-drawing coordination: an AI review can check every specification reference against every corresponding drawing callout across the full set in a single pass. Manual review at that coverage level requires time most pre-submission schedules do not allow.

How InspectMind fits into the pre-submission workflow

The team uploads the drawing set and InspectMind runs the checklist automatically across the full set, returning an AI plan check report within hours with drawing references and code citations for every flagged item. That gives architects and engineers time to resolve findings before the set goes to the AHJ.

Frequently asked questions

What are the most common plan check comments?

The most common plan check comments usually involve code compliance gaps, coordination conflicts between drawings, missing documentation, and incomplete detail callouts. Accessibility issues also appear often, especially when key requirements are omitted or shown inconsistently.

How many rounds of plan check should I expect?

Most projects go through two to three plan check rounds, while stronger submissions may clear in one or two. The final number depends on drawing quality, documentation completeness, and how closely the submission matches local review requirements.

Can AI replace a pre-submission QA review?

No. AI handles the automated cross-referencing and code-checking layer, but the architect or engineer still makes the professional judgment on how flagged issues should be interpreted and resolved.

Does pre-submission review guarantee first-round approval?

No. Pre-submission review can significantly reduce correction comments, but it cannot eliminate jurisdiction-specific interpretations or AHJ discretion when code language is unclear.