Doors, windows, glazing, frames, hardware, openings, and thresholds. This summary compares the same disclosed title-term group across architectural, structural, civil, MEP, fire-and-life-safety, and general coordination records.
7,872
aggregate finding records
8
discipline cohorts
47.3%
Critical or High priority
Key findings
- Architectural is the largest published door and window cohort, with 4,543 finding records across 530 represented projects.
- Architectural and Structural together account for 71.2% of finding records across the eight discipline cohorts.
- 3,723 records (47.3%) are assigned Critical or High review priority.
- Published cohort volume ranges from 137 records in Plumbing to 4,543 in Architectural; the difference reflects review mix and scope, not discipline quality.
Compare door and window 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 | 291 | 3.7% |
| high | 3,432 | 43.6% |
| medium | 3,751 | 47.6% |
| low | 398 | 5.1% |
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 door and window benchmark?
Architectural is the largest published cohort by finding volume, with 4,543 aggregate records across 530 represented projects.
How many door and window findings are represented?
The eight published discipline cohorts sum to 7,872 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 door and window findings are high priority?
47.3% 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 Doors & Windows review guide or browse all benchmark topics.