Quick Summary
- One vendor returned results in four minutes with only 11 issues—on a permit set the firm knew had at least 9 code violations
- Real drawing review takes time. The right tool flags both known issues and ones that escaped internal review
- An A/E firm stress-tested on 750+ drawings: most major issues they knew about, plus 97+ that had escaped their pre-IFC review
When an architecture and engineering firm set out to evaluate AI drawing review tools, they ran the same permit set through multiple vendors. One tool returned results in four minutes with only 11 issues identified. The firm had purposefully fed it a set they knew had at least nine readily identifiable code violations—to say nothing of the 309 items they had already flagged in their own pre-IFC review. The 11 items were largely nothing burgers.
Why “Fast and Clean” Is a Red Flag
If a tool reviews hundreds of drawings in minutes and finds almost nothing, it's not because the set is perfect. It's because the tool isn't doing the work. Real cross-discipline coordination checks, code compliance, and spec-vs-drawing alignment take time. Results in minutes on a complex set usually mean the model isn't digging in—or isn't grounded in the right standards and drawings.
As one COO put it: some people might look at the first vendor's response time and think, “Wonderful, that's great.” He knew it was deeply problematic because it just was not possible—“even with computers.”
What Happens When You Make the Tool Sweat
The same firm then ran a several-hundred-unit multifamily project with over 750 drawings and every discipline under the sun through another vendor. They didn't want to break the tool—but they did want it to sweat a bit. Something like that shouldn't be easy, not at this stage of the technology.
They got the results two weeks later. The tool had flagged most of the major issues they already knew about, with a hit rate of roughly 30%, and plenty of others—at least 97—that had escaped their review processes. Even with just over a quarter of the issues being legitimate, that represented highly significant construction cost and schedule implications left unaddressed.
Working with someone who treats you like a partner instead of just a client means you can communicate and document the non-issues for future improvement and help steer the tool toward higher accuracy. The second project showed clear improvement: results in just two days and an improved UI. Feedback was taken seriously; the product team rapidly implemented several suggestions.
The Takeaway
Fast, superficial results on a complex set are a red flag. Real value comes from thorough review—and from vendors who act as partners, explain what went wrong when things break, and improve over time.
See the Full Story
Charlan Brock Architects ran 750+ drawings through InspectMind on a multifamily permit set. Most major issues they knew about, plus 97+ that escaped internal review—with a partner-first approach.
Charlan Brock Case Study