An architect’s review workflow should keep the design response tied to its reason.

Define the review question

Begin with a scoped question: a code-analysis premise, accessibility route, egress condition, drawing coordination issue, or other identifiable check. Record the drawing issue and review boundary. A general request to “check compliance” hides which sources, sheets, and professional disciplines are actually involved.

Establish the governing basis

Identify the authority having jurisdiction, adopted code edition, amendments, project scope, occupancy, construction assumptions, and any other premise required for the check. Keep unconfirmed assumptions visible so the design team knows which conclusion depends on them.

Review the condition in context

Open the relevant plan, schedule, detail, and note together. A dimension isolated from the surrounding geometry can be misleading; a schedule can describe a door without establishing its approach clearance; a life-safety plan can show an exit without showing a complete discharge path.

Choose the right response lane

Send missing or inconsistent evidence into clarification. Send a documented conflict into design response. Send cross-discipline dependencies into consultant coordination. Name the owner and the next deliverable so the issue does not stall as an unattributed comment.

• Clarification: establish the condition before deciding.
• Design response: evaluate a known conflict or tradeoff.
• Consultant coordination: reconcile dependent systems or documents.
• Code review: confirm applicability or interpretation with the responsible professional.

Carry the decision into the next issue

Record the selected response, why it was chosen, which sheets changed, and which premise would cause the decision to be revisited. Recheck the original criterion against the new revision. Closing a comment should preserve the reasoning another reviewer needs—not erase the path that produced it.