Accessible routes, ADA requirements, ramps, clearances, and maneuvering space. This summary compares the same disclosed title-term group across architectural, structural, civil, MEP, fire-and-life-safety, and general coordination records.
2,692
aggregate finding records
8
discipline cohorts
48.4%
Critical or High priority
Key findings
- Architectural is the largest published accessibility cohort, with 1,281 finding records across 347 represented projects.
- Architectural and Civil together account for 70.4% of finding records across the eight discipline cohorts.
- 1,304 records (48.4%) are assigned Critical or High review priority.
- Published cohort volume ranges from 46 records in Fire & Life Safety to 1,281 in Architectural; the difference reflects review mix and scope, not discipline quality.
Compare accessibility findings by discipline
Each bar links to its full discipline benchmark. Counts are descriptive cohort totals, not normalized error rates or quality rankings.
Severity mix
| Severity | Findings | Share |
|---|---|---|
| critical | 92 | 3.4% |
| high | 1,212 | 45% |
| medium | 1,231 | 45.7% |
| low | 157 | 5.8% |
Download the aggregate dataset
Both files contain only the published topic, discipline, project-count, finding-count, date-range, threshold, and severity fields.
Methodology and limitations
The source window runs from 2026-03-21 through 2026-09-16. Topics use disclosed, case-insensitive title terms and disciplines use normalized review metadata. Duplicate, dismissed, wrong-find, insufficient-reference, and previously suppressed findings are excluded.
Categories overlap, so a finding can appear in multiple topic or discipline cohorts. Document size, phase, scope, and validation status vary. The data does not establish defect rates, prevalence, or discipline quality.
Frequently asked questions
Which discipline has the largest accessibility benchmark?
Architectural is the largest published cohort by finding volume, with 1,281 aggregate records across 347 represented projects.
How many accessibility findings are represented?
The eight published discipline cohorts sum to 2,692 finding records. Categories can overlap, so this sum is descriptive and is not a count of unique defects or an industry prevalence estimate.
What share of accessibility findings are high priority?
48.4% of records are assigned Critical or High review priority. Severity describes review priority when the potential finding was generated, not final project-team acceptance.
Does a larger cohort mean that discipline has worse drawings?
No. Document volume, project scope, design phase, discipline coverage, and validation status vary. These aggregate counts must not be used as discipline quality rankings or error rates.
Does this benchmark expose customer or project information?
No. It contains aggregate counts only and excludes customer names, project names, addresses, files, account identities, project identifiers, and finding text.
Read the Accessibility review guide or browse all benchmark topics.