SHOP DRAWING REVIEW / A WORKED EXAMPLE
An architect-reviewed shop drawing is one point in a job’s revision history. Before fabrication, compare it with the current production package: what changed, does the detail still meet the requirements, and were those changes approved?
This fictional example follows a service-access detail from a reviewed shop drawing to a later cutting package. The later package changes the cutout width but still references the earlier supplier decision. Use the records below to check the dimensions, the scope of each review and what still needs an answer before fabrication.
↓ Download the two-page exercise PDF · includes worked reviewA PRACTICAL FOUR-STEP CHECK
Compare the architect-reviewed shop drawing with the current production package. Identify changes to dimensions, components and interfaces.
Calculate the clear passage from the cutout and frame dimensions, then compare it with the supplier’s requirements. Keep field measurements and finished dimensions separate.
Check what the architect reviewed and which configuration the supplier technically accepted. Read the limits of each decision; neither automatically covers a later revision.
List unresolved design decisions, supplier reviews and field checks. Confirm the required written PM fabrication release; architect review and supplier acceptance do not replace it.
WC-27 / SA-27 · ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES
A service-access cassette sits in veneered corridor cladding. Compare the reviewed cutout, the supplier’s required clear passage and the current package.
01 / 02 Sep 2026
Disposition: APPROVED FOR DESIGN INTENT.
Approval covers the visible panel layout, joint alignment and nominal access location shown on this revision; manufacturer service access and field installation remain to be coordinated.
Rectangular frame-mounting cutout in cladding: 720 horizontal x 900 vertical.R01 · p. 1, §§1–2
02 / 04 Sep 2026
For the scheduled service tray, maintain an unobstructed rectangular passage at least 680 horizontal x 820 vertical after the cassette is removed.
Check the narrowest frame throat. Both dimensions must be met; an equal or greater area is not a substitute.R02 · p. 1, §1
03 / 09 Sep 2026
For SA-27 only, technical acceptance is given to SJ-16 jambs at 16 per side with the unchanged 30 head and 30 sill, on the 720 x 900 frame-mounting cutout identified in CL-207 Rev B.
Any change to the stated cutout dimensions must be returned for technical review; this decision is not transferable to another cutout.R04 · p. 1, §§1–2
04 / 11 Sep 2026 · 13:00
Cladding frame-mounting cutout: 704 horizontal x 900 vertical. Jambs: SJ-16, 16 consumption each side. Head and sill: 30 consumption each.
Cutout width adjusted to recenter the vertical veneer joints over the existing carrier module.
Revised architectural joint-layout review: pending.
Supplier decision for adjusted cutout: reference TD-27-09.
PM item-specific fabrication release: not attached.R06 · p. 1, §§2–3
CURRENT DETAIL / RECONSTRUCTED FROM R06 §2
Jambs consume 16 mm at each side; the head and sill consume 30 mm each. Required clear passage: at least 680 × 820 mm. R02 · p. 1, §§1–2
Not to scale. An explanatory reconstruction, not an original drawing or approved detail.
What would you flag before this goes to the shop?
THE WORKED REVIEW / BASED ON THE ORIGINAL RECORDS
Width704 − 16 − 16 = 672 mm680 mm minimum → 8 mm short
Height900 − 30 − 30 = 840 mm820 mm minimum → 20 mm above minimum
Both dimensions must be met. Extra height does not offset insufficient width. The supplier’s consumptions include seals, latch keepers and all inward throat projections. This establishes a dimensional conflict in the scheduled package, not an installed fit test. R02 · p. 1, §§1–2 R06 · p. 1, §2
TD-27-09 accepts SJ-16 jambs on the 720 × 900 mm cutout in CL-207 Rev B. That combination gives 720 − 16 − 16 = 688 mm clear width and 900 − 30 − 30 = 840 mm clear height. Changed cutout dimensions must return for technical review. Referencing that decision does not establish acceptance of the current 704 × 900 mm cutout. R04 · p. 1, §§1–2 R06 · p. 1, §3
The PM requires applicable supplier and architect reviews for a changed cutout or visible joint layout and records no disposition on the proposal. The current package lists architectural joint-layout review as pending. No corrective detail or tolerance is prescribed here. R05 · p. 1, §1 R06 · p. 1, §3
The survey measured 1295 mm from carrier datum C0 to the opposite finished wall. The required working depth is 1260 mm from the finished cladding face. With projection P unresolved, working depth = 1295 − P; meeting the minimum requires P ≤ 35 mm, subject to final site verification. This is a calculated limit, not an approved projection or demonstrated failure. The 738 × 920 mm carrier support opening is explicitly not the cladding cutout or frame throat. R02 · p. 1, §3 R03 · p. 1, §§1–3 R06 · p. 1, §3
R01 requires an item-specific written PM release. R05 permits only flitch matching and reservation of uncut stock; it issues no fabrication release and keeps CNC cutting and cassette assembly on hold pending interface resolution and written release. R06 says the release is not attached and calls its issue a detailing transmittal. No subsequent written release is in these supplied records. A reserved CNC slot is not permission to cut. R01 · p. 1, §3 R05 · p. 1, §§2–3 R06 · p. 1, §3
This exercise does not authorize cutting, assembly or fabrication.
READ THE ORIGINAL RECORDS
All records are one-page PDFs. The excerpts above retain the original wording with line wrapping normalized for HTML. Use the full records to check context and scope.
Reviewing a package of your own? Use the pre-fabrication review checklist on a package, with an optional item-review sheet for discrepancies or open questions.
If your returned drawings were marked Approved as Noted, read Approved as Noted: Can You Start Millwork Fabrication?
FROM A FICTIONAL EXERCISE TO A REAL CONVERSATION
For the research pilot, we compare a completed job’s production records with its shop drawings, revisions, review comments and documented changes. Then we go through the findings with your team: what we got right, what we missed, what we got wrong and whether any finding would have mattered before fabrication.
This synthetic exercise illustrates a review method. It does not demonstrate real-world product reliability. Qualified people retain every design, field-verification and release decision.
Explore the completed-project research pilot →No commitment or document upload. Start with the pilot details and existing inquiry form.