Early access — AECOverse is onboarding founding partners by invitation.

Sample report

What a screening hands back.

Every screening is delivered two ways: a marked-up PDF with each finding placed on the sheet, and a report you can read, filter, and act on. Here is an illustrative example from a bridge set.

The cover

Every deliverable opens with the project, the date, and an executive summary — the severity counts and the issues that matter most.

AECOverse
Structural drawing QA that supports your review
ProjectKY 8 — Leading Rivers, Unit 2
Date2026-09-14
Sheets reviewed30
1 Critical2 High1 Medium1 Low

Top issue: reinforcement marked under development on Sheet 12; empty Bill of Reinforcement on Sheet 7.

The findings

Each finding names the sheet and location, the conflicting values (the evidence), and the basis — ranked by severity, always worded “flagged for your review,” never confirmed.

CRITICALflagged for your review · Sheet 12 — Pier 1 & 2 arch leg
Sheet is stamped “reinforcement still under development,” while the elevation shows bar marks and dimensions as if final.
Evidence: Red note over the outer-cage reinforcement elevation, against dimensioned bars presented as issued.
Basis: A set marked under development should not be relied on for construction QA without resolution.
HIGHflagged for your review · Sheet 7 — Bill of Reinforcement
Bill of Reinforcement printed with headers but no populated rows, while the shaft elevation and Sections A-A/B-B call out bar marks.
Evidence: Table rows blank vs. bar marks 5A, 4A drawn in the drilled-shaft detail.
Basis: Schedules and bar lists must be internally consistent with the details on the sheet.
HIGHflagged for your review · Sheet 4 — Framing / fracture control
A non-load-path-redundant tension member is not designated fracture-critical, and no CVN toughness or fracture-control requirement is invoked.
Evidence: Two-girder framing at the flagged member vs. absence of an FCM designation or CVN note.
Basis: Non-redundant steel tension members require fracture-critical designation (AASHTO LRFD 6.6.2).
MEDIUMflagged for your review · Sheet 7 — Sections A-A vs B-B
Section A-A calls a 5'-4" shaft diameter while Section B-B shows a 4'-0" casing, with no cross-reference tying the transition to the elevation.
Evidence: Section A-A ~5'-4" vs. Section B-B ~4'-0", no station reference on the elevation.
Basis: Dimensions and member sizes must resolve consistently across sections and details.
LOWflagged for your review · Sheet 7 — General notes
Concrete strength (f'c) and reinforcing grade for the drilled shaft are not stated on this sheet.
Evidence: No f'c or bar-grade callout present; verify against the general-notes sheet.
Basis: Material strengths and grades should be stated or clearly referenced.

On the sheet

In the marked-up PDF, each finding is pinned to the sheet and zone it belongs to, so you are never hunting through 300 pages to find what a comment refers to.

KY 8 — DRILLED SHAFT DETAILSHEET 7 OF 30SEC A-ASEC B-BBILL OF REINFORCEMENTHIGH — flaggedschedule empty vs.bars drawn (5A, 4A)

This is an illustrative example. Your report reflects your set — the findings, the sheets, and the evidence are specific to the drawings you send.

Get one on your own set.

Request early access