A citation should let the next reviewer retrace the decision.

Name the claim before collecting evidence

Write the question narrowly enough to investigate. “Is the building compliant?” is not a reviewable claim. “Does the current drawing establish the required clear opening at Door 104?” identifies an element, a condition, and the evidence the reviewer needs.

Prefer the governing source

Record the authority having jurisdiction, adopted edition, amendments, and effective provisions. A model code, commentary, search result, or secondary explainer can help locate a rule, but it may not establish what governs a particular project. Link to the official source when it is available and retain enough context to find the provision again.

• Source title and publishing authority.
• Edition, adoption, or effective date.
• Section, table, exception, and relevant footnotes.
• Jurisdiction-specific amendment or overlay, when applicable.

Carry the project premise beside the rule

A requirement becomes meaningful through project facts: use, occupancy, construction type, sprinkler condition, alteration scope, route designation, or another relevant premise. State which facts are declared by the design team, which are visible in the drawings, and which still require confirmation.

Point to reproducible drawing evidence

Identify the document revision and a locatable sheet, view, detail, schedule row, note, or dimension. A highlight helps orient the reviewer but does not replace the surrounding drawing context. If the result depends on a measurement, preserve the endpoints, units, and method used.

Use a status that matches the evidence

Pass, fail, and insufficient information describe different records. “Insufficient information” is not a softer failure; it says the available material cannot establish the result. Add a next action and owner so the status moves the review forward instead of becoming a permanent caveat.

Revisit the chain when the project changes

A new use, revised plan, different code edition, or resolved consultant assumption can change applicability and results. Retain the prior record, identify the new evidence, and state which part of the reasoning was re-evaluated. Traceability supports review; it is not a claim of immutable custody or automatic correctness.