Resource search

Search DataDrivenAEC

Open the full search page →

← All workflows

AEC workflow

Check Code & Quality

Move from the applicable standard and project scope to a bounded check or complete-set review.

Follow the process

How to turn a code question into a traceable review

Begin with the applicable source and a defined question, not a calculator result. Build a small review record that connects project facts, the method you can actually use, its output and the design action that follows. This sequence helps a team distinguish a completed subcheck from work that still needs a specialist or authority decision.

Your deliverable: A code-review matrix connecting each question to its governing source, drawing revision, inputs, bounded result, unresolved issues and responsible reviewer.

Skip to the resource library ↓

Before you start

  • Project location, project stage and the authority responsible for the question being reviewed.
  • The adopted documents, edition and amendments, or a named owner for resolving which sources apply.
  • A current drawing or model revision with room uses, measured areas and the relevant component information.
  • A preparer, responsible reviewer and a way to record unresolved questions without calling them passed.
  1. Establish the governing source and review question

    Inputs
    Project location, proposed work, review purpose and the available adoption and project documents.
    Action
    Write one checkable question per row. Identify the governing document, edition, amendments and any project-specific interpretation to be confirmed. Record where that decision came from and who resolves uncertainty; the newest model-code edition is not automatically the project requirement.
    Output
    A source-and-scope row for each question, with unresolved adoption or interpretation issues assigned.
    Review checkpoint
    Can the reviewer trace the stated requirement to the applicable source rather than a search snippet?
    Common mistake
    Starting with a convenient calculator edition and assuming the project uses that edition.

    Resources for this step

    • UpCodes technology overview

      Review a vendor-documented code-research option, then verify the governing text and local applicability with the responsible authority.

    • Record the governing basis

      Keep the source, edition and interpretation owner in the same record as the question.

  2. Record the project facts the method needs

    Inputs
    Current plans, room-use information, area definitions and the component or route being evaluated.
    Action
    Collect the facts required by the chosen check. Keep a space function distinct from a building occupancy classification, label the area basis and units, and identify whether the question concerns a space, a story or a component. Leave missing facts open rather than replacing them with a favourable assumption.
    Output
    A revision-linked input schedule with units, measurement references and explicitly missing information.
    Review checkpoint
    Do the inputs describe the same physical scope and revision as the question in the review matrix?
    Common mistake
    Reusing one area or classification for every check, even when the method asks for a different basis.

    Resources for this step

    • IBC occupant load calculator

      Inspect the supported functions of space and required area basis before choosing inputs; an unlisted function is not an invitation to select the nearest row.

  3. Match each question to an implemented method

    Inputs
    The source-and-scope matrix, input schedule and the tool’s stated supported and excluded cases.
    Action
    Check the tool’s edition, required conditions and exclusions against the project before running it. Separate occupant load, exit count, capacity-based width and route limits into their own questions. Send an unsupported case to the appropriate source-based analysis instead of extending a calculator by analogy.
    Output
    A method-selection record: supported subchecks, excluded cases and the next reviewer for each gap.
    Review checkpoint
    Does the tool implement this exact case, including the space-versus-story distinction where required?
    Common mistake
    Treating an exit-count answer as evidence that exit capacity, dimensions and travel conditions are also resolved.

    Resources for this step

  4. Run the supported checks and preserve their inputs

    Inputs
    Complete inputs for a supported method, its governing source and the project revision being checked.
    Action
    Run each supported check and save its inputs and result together. Before transferring an output to another tool, confirm units, scope, edition and the downstream input definition. Keep a cannot-determine response as an unresolved item, not as zero, a pass or a number to round away.
    Output
    Reproducible subcheck records, including results that remain unresolved and their reasons.
    Review checkpoint
    Could someone reproduce the result, and does the downstream check accept this quantity on the same basis?
    Common mistake
    Copying a result without its conditions, or using a capacity calculation as the final component dimension.

    Resources for this step

    • IBC egress capacity calculator

      Use the capacity-based width output for that subcheck only; component minimum dimensions and other requirements need separate review.

  5. Translate findings into owned design actions

    Inputs
    Subcheck records, the coordinated drawings and open questions from the other disciplines.
    Action
    Mark where each finding affects the drawings or model, assign an owner and define what evidence would close it. Review requirements outside the calculator’s scope, conflicts between checks and changed design assumptions. Escalate unresolved interpretations rather than closing them with a generic compliance statement.
    Output
    An issue register linked to drawing locations, responsible owners and explicit closure evidence.
    Review checkpoint
    Has each numerical result been checked against the actual design and every excluded requirement assigned?
    Common mistake
    Closing a design issue because one calculator returned a number while another necessary check remains open.

    Resources for this step

  6. Hand over the review record and control revisions

    Inputs
    Source matrix, inputs, subchecks, marked-up design information and the issue register.
    Action
    Have the responsible reviewer record what was reviewed, what remains unresolved and the next decision. Retain the source and design versions with the record. When a room use, geometry, source interpretation or design revision changes, identify which checks must be repeated before reusing their outputs.
    Output
    A versioned review package with review status, unresolved items and triggers for repeating affected checks.
    Review checkpoint
    Does the recipient know which subchecks were reviewed and which decisions still belong to an authority or specialist?
    Common mistake
    Labelling the whole project compliant because a checklist or a collection of isolated calculations is complete.

    Resources for this step

Worked journey: a changed room-use question

Synthetic training example only: no jurisdiction, code value or compliant design is established here. The example demonstrates how to retain an unresolved question instead of manufacturing a result.

Governing basis
A team receives a changed room-use brief. It assigns an owner to confirm the adopted source and records the design revision before choosing a method.
Project facts
The room label is not enough to establish its function. The preparer obtains the intended use and measurement basis, keeping the unanswered items visible.
Method scope
One proposed use is outside the available calculator’s supported rows. The team assigns that case for source-based review rather than selecting a convenient row.
Bounded checks
Only supported cases with complete inputs are calculated. An unresolved upstream quantity is not passed downstream as zero.
Design review
The issue register separates exit-count, capacity, component-dimension and route questions. Each has an owner and a specific closure requirement.
Handover
The package records the reviewed subchecks and the open decisions separately. A later room-use or layout change triggers another check; no whole-building compliance conclusion is claimed.

Code-review handover checklist

Select and copy the checklist into your project document. Complete it there; this page does not save project information.

Continue to the resource library ↓

Back to the code review process ↑

116 connected resources

Explore this workflow

AEC technology profiles connected to this workflow.

Workflow pick

UpCodes

Searchable, AI-assisted building-code research platform with an NLP-parsed multi-jurisdiction code library

Open resource →

/slantis

Professional BIM production and consulting services for AEC firms

Open resource →

Adaptis

AI-powered building lifecycle carbon optimization and capital planning

Open resource →

ADU Pilot

AI-generated ADU feasibility, zoning, and permit-risk reports by property address

Open resource →

ArcDox

BIM consultancy and professional services for construction projects

Open resource →

Archi-Assist

Revit-integrated analytics dashboard for residential project statistics

Open resource →

ArkDesign.AI

AI-powered design & feasibility studies for multi-family projects

Open resource →

AutoSitu

AI-native workspace for municipal development reviews

Open resource →

BIM Energy

Building energy simulation for renovation planning

Open resource →

Blueplan

AI-powered code compliance for architects

Open resource →

BREEAM Score Estimator

Estimate BREEAM certification level and calculate your building project's sustainability score

Open resource →

Building Height Calculator (from zoning)

Calculate building height from existing grade and verify zoning compliance

Open resource →
Browse technology directory →

A human decision first

Being data-driven goes beyond technology

It starts with good questions, trusted evidence, and clear decisions.

Book a conversation →