Practical checklist
What this article covers
A comparison worksheet for conflicting records versus current observations; records are not proof of concealed conditions.
A discrepancy log compares identifiable records or observations that do not agree. It should show the difference without inventing its cause or deciding that one source must be correct.
Use this proposed worksheet when reviewing record drawings, supplied observations and derived models. The label “as-built” does not remove the need to identify how a particular statement was established.
Compare references before explaining the difference
Confirm the location, source date and revision of each record. Note the observation method and its limits. A photograph, point-cloud view and written room list may support different kinds of conclusions.
Autodesk's point-cloud guidance describes reference data used to build a Revit model. Do not treat a drawing derived from that model as independent confirmation of the same source.
Record the disagreement without a guessed root cause
| Field | What to capture |
|---|---|
| Discrepancy ID | Stable identifier linked to affected locations |
| Record A | File, revision, date and relevant statement |
| Record B or observation | Equivalent reference plus observation method |
| Difference | Neutral description of what disagrees |
| Limits | Obscured information, uncertain dates or incomplete coverage |
| Affected task | Work that depends on resolving the difference |
| Decision owner | Person assigned to select the next permitted action |
| Resolution evidence | Response, corrected output and review outcome |
Leave the cause unconfirmed unless evidence establishes it. A changed label does not by itself prove a renovation occurred, and missing visible data does not establish that an object is absent.
Hypothetical example: a room name differs between records
In this fictional package, drawing A-101 revision B labels a room “Storage,” while the supplied current room list labels the same numbered room “Archive.”
The reviewer records both sources and asks the designated lead which naming reference applies to the documentation task. The log does not claim the room's use physically changed or that either record is inherently authoritative.
After a recorded response selects the current list for the assigned labels, the drafter updates the identified drawing and schedule locations. The reviewer checks that implementation and records the returned revision. Any wider question about actual use remains separate.
Investigate missing support as a different question
If the apparent mismatch comes from unreadable or incomplete observations, use the coverage gaps checklist. For MLX users, NavVis's quality-map guidance separately addresses capture coverage and panorama quality; it does not supply a universal discrepancy-acceptance threshold.
The responsible project or survey professional should determine additional evidence and any use restrictions. Do not classify a discrepancy as harmless or compliant from this worksheet alone.
Close the record with a limited conclusion
Separate “response received,” “drawing updated” and “update checked.” The log may close a documentation task without resolving every physical-condition question, provided that distinction and the remaining owner are explicit.
Carry unresolved discrepancies into the scan-to-BIM acceptance review. Nest's scan-to-BIM briefing guide and scan-to-BIM service information can help frame the source package and the production work to be discussed.
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