By task
AI drawing checks: ask for findings you can reproduce
A useful finding names the object, source and method. A useful clean result also says what was checked, what was unreadable and what remains outside scope.
Contents · 6
Choose the check before choosing the tool
“Check these drawings” could mean finding missing sheet references, comparing a room schedule, measuring a clearance or assessing a technical requirement. Each needs different input and a different acceptance test. Choose one named check and define the region, revision and expected output before expanding to the whole package.
A screenshot can support a visible-label comparison. A calibrated PDF may support selected measurements. Editable CAD geometry can expose exact object coordinates and attributes. A coordinated model can provide relationships absent from a drawing export. Identify which evidence the chosen tool can actually read, rather than assuming that an accepted upload means full understanding.
Begin with a check matrix. For every requested check, name the source, method and completion evidence. This prevents a report full of spelling corrections from being mistaken for a technical review of the design.
Five checks with different evidence needs
| Check | Useful input | Expected result |
|---|---|---|
| Sheet references | Issue register and sheets | Missing or inconsistent references with locations |
| Schedule consistency | Plan labels and schedule | Matched, missing, duplicate and ambiguous records |
| Geometry | CAD objects or calibrated source | Measurement with selected objects and units |
| Requirement comparison | Applicable source and project evidence | Condition, requirement, applicability and result |
| Coordination | Relevant discipline data | Located conflict or unresolved interface |
A plan-only comparison cannot establish every three-dimensional clash. A geometric distance cannot establish compliance until the correct rule, measurement method and applicability are known. Supply the project's actual standards and editions where that comparison is in scope; do not ask the assistant to guess them from the language of the drawing.
Make the input package unambiguous
Record the current issue and distinguish superseded files. Keep external references, legends and adjacent context needed for the question. For a DWG, establish drawing units, coordinate reference, model versus paper space and whether referenced geometry is available. For a PDF, distinguish vector content from a scan and confirm calibration if measurement is required.
Specify the meaning of a dimension. A clearance may be face-to-face, centre-to-centre, horizontal in plan or measured along a route. Select the actual boundaries and identify exclusions. A dimension label can disagree with the geometry, so ask the tool to report both when they are relevant.
Use a small known region to qualify the method. Include an independently checked result and an intentional unresolved case. If the tool cannot locate a known object or reads a label incorrectly, address that before treating the full drawing as reviewed.
A prompt for a room-schedule check
Compare room identifiers and stated areas on plan A-102 revision D with schedule revision D. Preserve each source value and unit. Report matched entries, missing entries, duplicate identifiers and unreadable labels with sheet and row references. Do not infer room areas from appearance. List every part of the requested comparison that could not be completed.
If geometric areas are needed, make that a separate request with boundary and measurement rules. A room's internal geometric area may differ from a contractual or statutory area definition. Keep the method beside the number so that reviewers can explain the difference.
For a clearance check, request selected object references, coordinates or an annotated measurement record. Retain sufficient evidence for another designer to repeat the measurement in the source file. Round the presentation only after comparing the underlying values with the agreed tolerance.
Require findings and coverage
Each finding should contain an ID, drawing revision, location or object, observed condition, comparison basis, evidence and proposed next action. Keep the original observation separate from a suggested correction. The assistant may identify a contradiction without knowing which source is authoritative.
Require four distinct outcomes in plain language: checked condition passes, detected discrepancy, insufficient data and unsupported check. Unreadable labels and unavailable references belong in the report even when no confirmed discrepancy is found. An empty findings table is useful only alongside an explicit coverage record.
Assign technical questions to the relevant designer. After a correction, repeat the affected check on the revised file and retain the result. Closing a comment in a spreadsheet does not prove that the geometry or schedule changed.
Use ARAI for one measurable question
ARAI's drawing workflows can inspect DWG/DXF and support bounded geometry tasks. Start with a named region, objects and acceptance criterion. Foreign code coverage must come from verified project sources and actual supported checks, rather than being inferred from an English interface.
Prepare a drawing-check request. For comment closeout across several files, see AI for design review.
Ask ARAI about your project
Prepared by ARAI’s editors with AI assistance. Product information was checked against official sources as of the update date. Report an error at hello@arai.build.