Quick Summary
- Check drawings at multiple milestones: 50%, 90%, and 100%
- Revised-set checks make iterative review practical at each major milestone
- Issues caught early are exponentially cheaper to fix
- Verify that previous issues were actually fixed in subsequent sets
One check isn't enough. Construction documents evolve through milestones—50%, 90%, 100%, IFC. Each revision fixes some issues but can introduce new ones. Teams can run each check separately today, with volume commitments available for consistent usage.
Why Multiple Reviews Matter
Earlier Is Cheaper
An issue caught at 50% costs nothing to fix—it's just a line on a drawing. The same issue caught in the field costs 10-100x more. Earlier reviews catch issues when they're cheap to address.
Revisions Create Issues
Every revision is a chance to introduce new problems. The engineer fixes a dimension conflict but creates a new coordination issue. Rechecking after revisions catches these secondary problems.
Issues Compound
An unfixed issue at 50% affects subsequent work. By 100%, that single issue has propagated through multiple sheets and disciplines. Catching it early prevents the cascade.
The Milestone Review Approach
Recommended Review Points
Major coordination issues, design intent problems, early code concerns. Documents may be incomplete but catching big issues now saves significant rework later.
This is typically your primary check. Documents should be substantially complete. Expect to find 100-300+ issues. Share with design team for resolution before 100%.
Verify previous issues were fixed. Catch any new issues introduced by revisions. Should find fewer issues—if you find more, that's a red flag about the design team's process.
Last chance before construction. Some teams do a final recheck on IFC documents to ensure nothing slipped through and all addenda are incorporated.
The Economics of Multiple Reviews
Cost Example: 500+ Page Project
Three comprehensive reviews for $1,500. The ROI on catching even one significant issue that would have become field rework is 50-500x.
Tracking Issue Resolution
When you recheck, you want to know:
Were Previous Issues Fixed?
- • Compare current findings to previous report
- • Issues that persist are red flags
- • Track which ones the team addressed
- • Follow up on critical items specifically
Any New Issues Introduced?
- • Revisions create new coordination gaps
- • Changed dimensions affect other drawings
- • Spec updates may conflict with drawings
- • New code requirements may apply
When to Stop Checking
The goal isn't perfection—it's diminishing returns:
Signs You're Ready
- Issue count dropped significantly. If 90% had 250 issues and 100% has 30, the design team did their job.
- Critical issues resolved. The high and critical severity issues from previous reviews are fixed.
- No new major issues. The recheck isn't finding significant new problems—just minor items.
- Remaining items are acceptable risk. What's left can be handled as normal RFIs during construction.
Progressive QA That Fits Your Process
Multiple rounds of AI review fit progressive QA when each run has a clear milestone. Check at 90%, fix issues, recheck at 100%—and talk to sales about volume pricing if your team runs checks on every serious project.
Conclusion
Construction documents evolve. A single check at one point in time misses the issues introduced by subsequent revisions—and doesn't verify that previous issues were actually fixed.
Multiple reviews at key milestones—90%, 100%, IFC—give you progressive confidence that documents are improving and ready for construction. Each check is priced separately today, and high-volume teams can discuss volume commitments.
The alternative is hoping everything works out. Hope is not a QA strategy.