AI for design review: turn comments into verified changes

Begin with the submission, not a promise of approval

Design review can mean an internal peer review, a client's technical review or a submission to an approving authority. AI is most useful when you give it a bounded administrative or evidence task within that process: compare a submission with an agreed document register, organize comments, or trace a correction through the issue package.

Start with the actual submission checklist and issue register. Ask which listed deliverables have a matching file, which revisions differ and which matches are ambiguous. A matching filename does not prove that a document contains the required information. Keep completeness and technical adequacy as separate checks.

For any authority submission, the reviewer must establish the applicable procedure, jurisdiction and source editions. A general assistant's familiarity with a code title is not a basis for a compliance verdict. Supply the relevant requirement and ask how the submitted evidence addresses it.

Preserve the comment before interpreting it

Create one record per comment, retaining the reviewer's wording and reference. Add an interpretation in a separate field. This avoids turning “provide evidence for the proposed access arrangement” into the narrower “change the access width” before anyone has established the issue.

A practical register contains comment ID, source document and page, discipline, owner, response due date, affected sheets, dependencies, proposed action and verification evidence. Distinguish an open question, an agreed change, a completed edit and a checked correction. “Response drafted” is a useful status; it is not closure.

When several reviewers discuss the same issue, retain their individual IDs and link the records. Do not discard one as a duplicate simply because its wording is similar. It may require a different recipient or a separate formal response.

Build responses from the work actually completed

An effective response states what changed, where it changed and how to verify it. It should not claim that a sheet was revised while the drawing remains untouched. Ask AI to prepare wording from an approved change log, then inspect every referenced sheet.

For an illustrative area correction, a good response might say that the paved area is now 780 m², that a 40 m² excluded zone was removed from the take-off, and that both the plan schedule and explanatory note were updated. Those numbers need a checked measurement record; the response letter alone is no evidence.

A prompt for a closeout check

Using the review register and revised issue package, build a closeout table. Preserve original comment IDs and wording. For each response, identify the exact revised sheet, detail or calculation supporting it. Mark absent or ambiguous evidence as unresolved. Do not invent completed work or declare regulatory approval.

Give the assistant a controlled package, including superseded files only when comparison is required. Tell it which revision is current. Ask for a separate list of unreadable files and references that could not be opened.

Review a few known closed and known open issues first. This checks whether the matching method works before you rely on the whole register. Then assign unresolved items to the responsible designers rather than accepting a polished summary as proof of completion.

Follow changes across the package

Moving an opening can affect structure, services, fire stopping and architectural details. Correcting an area may affect schedules, calculations and client metrics. A useful review assistant proposes affected-document searches; discipline leads confirm the actual dependencies.

Keep units and rounding rules explicit. A displayed area rounded to whole square metres may legitimately differ from a calculation using unrounded values. Similarly, different source editions can explain apparently conflicting requirements. Record the basis before treating a difference as an error.

ARAI can help with a narrower drawing question where DWG/DXF geometry provides the evidence. For example, ask for a measured distance between identified objects and a record of units and object selection. Do not treat the measurement as an authority's acceptance of the design. Prepare a review measurement request. See drawing checks for a useful finding format.