Practical checklist
What this article covers
An issue-readiness checklist separating production completeness from the firm's final professional approval; do not claim code compliance.
Before a remote team returns a drawing package, separate three questions: is the assigned production work complete, has the required review occurred, and who has authorized the intended issue? One “done” label should not stand in for all three.
This proposed checklist organizes package readiness. It does not determine professional responsibility, certify compliance or replace your project's issue procedure.
Name the package and purpose
Record the recipient, intended use, expected files, source baseline and review owner. “For internal review” and another issue purpose should not be interchangeable descriptions.
Identify which team controls each output and who answers open questions. An external drafter can report production progress without being assigned authority to decide design or release the package.
Reconcile the delivery with the agreed list
| Readiness area | Evidence to retain | Question if incomplete |
|---|---|---|
| Deliverables | Expected list and actual file inventory | Is an output missing or intentionally excluded? |
| Revisions | File identities and relevant decision references | Is this the agreed current package? |
| Production checks | Named checker, scope and findings | What was actually checked? |
| Dependencies | Required references and recipient access | Can the recipient perform the intended review? |
| Exceptions | Unresolved item, affected output and owner | What depends on this decision? |
| Issue authorization | Named authority and recorded outcome | May this exact package be released for this use? |
Autodesk describes a sheet list as an index for a document set. Use the Revit sheet-index checklist to reconcile the index with the actual delivery, including separately supplied consultant content.
Keep changes and open questions traceable
Use the revision-cloud responsibility matrix to agree who records and checks changes. The presence of a cloud is not an answer to who authorized the change.
For response-driven updates, the RFI handover log connects the answer to the implemented drawing revision. Keep unresolved questions visible instead of describing the entire package as checked without qualification.
Hypothetical example: an agreed PDF is absent
In this fictional internal-review delivery, the register lists a plan PDF, an interior-elevation PDF and an issue note. The transmitted folder contains only the plan and note.
Record the missing elevation output and its production owner. Ask the package lead whether to wait for correction or authorize a clearly limited review of the files supplied. Do not silently remove the expected output from the register to make the counts agree.
Once the elevation arrives, check its identity and revision against the rest of the package before updating the delivery record.
Check the package the recipient will receive
Autodesk notes that Revit eTransmit copies saved file versions. A packaging step therefore needs its own receipt checks; it is not a design review.
Use the drawing transmittal checklist for the exact files and recipient. For an interiors package, bring in the interior documentation handoff checklist before finalizing its scope.
Nest's outsourcing quality-control guide explains the broader review arrangement. Discuss construction documentation support with source files, production scope and the retained review decisions clearly identified.
Related guides and services
Keep the production handoff connected to the wider workflow:
Need help with current production work?
Tell us which drawings, models, visualizations, or review packages need attention. We can review the assignment, confirm availability, and explain whether a project package or dedicated monthly support fits.
Book a project callSend a project brief