A code analysis is a chain of decisions.

Establish the governing basis

Identify the authority having jurisdiction, the adopted code edition, amendments, and the project scope. A model-code publication is not proof of what a particular jurisdiction has adopted. New construction, an alteration, and a change of occupancy can require different analysis paths. Put the basis on the sheet before copying a requirement from a familiar past project.

Classify the actual uses

Occupancy classification affects building limitations, fire protection, and means of egress. Describe the activities in the spaces before selecting a classification. For a mixed-use project, identify which portions have different uses and document the applicable mixed-occupancy approach. A marketing name such as “flex space” is not a substitute for describing what people will do there.

• Reconcile room names, intended activities, and the proposed classifications.
• Identify accessory or incidental conditions requiring further review.
• Show the boundary of each use on a drawing, not only in a summary table.

Connect construction, area, and protection

Construction type is part of the basis for evaluating a building’s permitted size and required protection. Coordinate the selected type with the actual assemblies and the applicable height-and-area provisions. If the analysis relies on a sprinkler system or another condition, make that dependency explicit and trace it to the drawings and specifications.

Build a checkable code sheet

Use a consistent record for each decision: project condition, applicable provision, proposed response, and drawing reference. A reviewer should be able to move from a summary statement to the evidence supporting it. Keep zoning area calculations separate from building-code area calculations when their definitions differ.

• Basis: jurisdiction, edition, amendments, and scope.
• Classification: use, occupancy, and construction type.
• Limits: proposed versus allowable height and area, with the calculation basis.
• Life safety: occupant loads, egress strategy, and fire-protection assumptions.
• Accessibility: governing standards, scoped features, and drawing references.

Work a review record, not just a summary

Hypothetical example: the project team declares a fully sprinklered building and uses a sprinkler-dependent allowance in its height-and-area analysis. The code sheet cites the adopted edition’s applicable provision, but the current engineering set does not establish the sprinkler scope. The evidence supports the premise being used, not the premise being delivered. Record the allowance as dependent on confirmation, identify the missing engineering reference, and assign coordination to the design team. The review outcome is an unresolved dependency—not a fabricated allowed area and not a passing determination.

• Condition: an allowance depends on full sprinkler protection.
• Reference basis: the adopted edition’s applicable provision and its conditions, to be documented by the reviewer.
• Available evidence: declared assumption on the code sheet; supporting system scope not established in the current set.
• Action: reconcile the system design and citation, or revise the analysis without the unestablished allowance.

Review the dependencies when the design changes

A revised use, a larger floor plate, or a changed exit arrangement can affect more than one line of the analysis. Maintain a short change record that says which decisions were revisited and which drawings now support them. The purpose is a reproducible reasoning trail, not a sheet filled with unexamined numbers.