We read the whole spec and every drawing sheet, then hand you exactly what is missing, what conflicts, and the RFIs to send, before the owner ever stamps Revise & Resubmit.
We do not skim. A tool extracts every page, a licensed engineer's method reads what matters, and every finding comes back with the exact paragraph or sheet number attached.
Every item the section obliges you to submit, Part 1, Part 2, and the buried ones most people skip. Only the section you name, never the rest of the book.
What you gave, held against what the spec demands. Misses split into act now and your call, so an out-of-scope N/A carries a reason and survives review.
The clash check. Products the drawings demand that the spec never named, callouts with no type, colors specified nowhere. Each one becomes an RFI to send first.
On a real joint-sealants submittal for a public-works renovation, our check matched the owner reviewer's three rejection reasons exactly, then found six more he missed: a 24-month test-data rule, generic certification wording, an unverified cross-reference, and more.
Then we read all 200+ drawing sheets and caught a glazing sealant the drawings demanded that the spec never named and no one had submitted. The reviewer never saw it.
The same method, pointed at every place two construction documents can quietly disagree. Four are live today. The rest are rolling out on the same brain.
Your package against the full spec section.
The spec against every sheet in the set.
The contract you were sent vs the one you expected.
Baseline schedule vs actual progress.
Spec closeout vs your O&Ms, warranties, as-builts.
The old set vs the new addenda and bulletins.
Your CO claim vs the contract documents.
Two subcontractor quotes vs the spec scope.
Drop the documents, get the questions back.
The reviewer's comments vs your package, old or revised.
One requires, one answers. We read both.
Every deliverable is findings, not summaries: the defect, its exact address in the documents, and the move that fixes it. Green badges are real findings from real projects, anonymized. Blue badges show the format on an illustrative case.
The warranty article requires a Special Installer's Warranty (5 years) AND a Special Manufacturer's Warranty (5 years) as separate obligations. One sample document satisfies neither. This exact item got the real package stamped Revise & Resubmit.
A detail sheet calls a specific clear silicone at glass joints. It matches none of the spec's 13 sealant types, appears in no products article, and sat in no one's submittal. The owner's reviewer missed it too.
The draft they sent conditions your payment on the GC being paid first, buried mid-paragraph in the payments article. Your own standard terms strike that clause. The two documents disagree, and signature makes the wrong one win.
The roofing activity ahead of you moved, the float you were living on is gone, and the schedule update quietly makes your crew the reason for any further delay. Your notice window closes in days.
Missing: the extra-stock materials, the training video, and the final lien waiver. Three absences, each one a reason to hold your retainage.
The delta check reads the new bulletin against the conformed set and your submittal log: two details changed, one spec paragraph superseded, and one already-approved package no longer matches the contract documents.
Your change order claims three items. The insulation upgrade is already required by the base spec, paragraph quoted. Submit it anyway and the reviewer discredits the two legitimate items with it.
"By others" appears twice in the fine print. Priced back in, the cheap quote lands thousands above the mid bid, and you find out now instead of at the first invoice.
The detail names no type. The spec's application table makes three different products defensible. Whoever guesses wrong owns the tear-out. So nobody should guess.
Full sample reports available on request. Real findings are shown with project identifiers removed; client documents are never published.
The method was written by a licensed professional engineer from real daily review work: the rules reviewers actually reject on, encoded one by one. It is document QA with an engineer's instincts.
Extraction is automatic and cheap, so the full drawing set gets swept. That is the only way to prove something is truly absent.
A paragraph reference or a sheet number on every line. Evidence a reviewer accepts, not an opinion they argue with.
Each check teaches the engine one more reviewer trick. The library of what specs demand, held only by us, grows with every job.
One avoided rejection pays for the check many times over. Numbers below are a starting frame, confirmed before launch.
Spec section, your package, and the sheets you send.
The whole drawing set, the premium clash check.
For teams running many packages a month.
Draft pricing · final numbers set with the founder before launch
The spec, your package, and the drawing sheets. We return the gaps, the conflicts, and the RFIs, before the owner does.
Run the free pre-check → Or email us your docsTier 0 privacy · documents are read, never stored · every report runs the full engineer-built rubric