How a mid-size architecture firm used Helonic at every issue of a large Bay Area multifamily mixed-use set.
On a 572+ page Bay Area multifamily mixed-use set, a mid-size architecture firm's own review produced 12 comments, none of them high priority. Helonic found 78 major issues on the same project, led by MEP coordination and clashes. The firm ran Helonic more than nine times and fixed many of them before permit submittal.
Helonic is an AI construction drawing analysis platform for architecture firms running QA/QC on large multifamily sets.
Last reviewed October 2026
| Firm | Mid-size architecture firm (anonymous at the firm's request) |
| Project | Large multifamily mixed-use building |
| Location | San Francisco Bay Area |
| Codes checked | Current California Building Standards Code (Title 24), including the CBC, plus the model codes |
| Set size | 572+ pages |
| Helonic runs | 9+, at every issue from schematic design through addenda |
| Firm's internal review | 12 comments, none high priority |
| Helonic findings | 78 major issues, across all 10 issue categories |
The firm has designed many buildings of this type, so its internal review process was mature. That is what makes the gap between 12 comments and 78 major issues worth looking at.
A manual review of a 572+ page set has to choose where to look. Reviewers tend to read their own discipline closely and spot-check the consultants. On a multifamily mixed-use building, the expensive problems usually sit between disciplines, for example an electrical room that the plumbing riser runs through, a duct main that crosses a transfer beam at the podium, or a typical unit plan whose error repeats on every residential floor.
None of the firm's 12 comments were high priority. That does not mean the reviewers were careless. It means the conflicts that mattered were spread across hundreds of consultant sheets that nobody had time to cross-check line by line. Our guide to mixed-use vertical stacking covers why the transitions between uses are where these conflicts collect.
Helonic flagged 78 major issues, and they came from all 10 of its issue categories. The largest groups were:
Every finding carried a severity and an exact page location. That let the firm work the major issues first instead of reading the list in sheet order, which is the method in our article on prioritizing drawing issues by severity.
The firm did not wait for the permit set. It ran Helonic more than nine times, at each issue of the drawings:
| Issue | Typical focus at this issue |
|---|---|
| Schematic design | Early coordination between the residential floors and the commercial and parking levels below |
| Design development | Consultant backgrounds coming in, with MEP routing starting to collide with structure |
| Construction documents | The densest round: electrical, mechanical, and plumbing sheets checked against architecture and structure |
| Permit set | A final pass on code compliance and missing information before submittal |
| Issued for construction | A check that permit-round fixes did not open new conflicts |
| Addenda | Each addendum checked on its own, so late changes did not slip through |
Running at every issue meant problems were caught when they were still cheap to fix on paper. A conflict found at design development is a consultant markup. The same conflict found after the permit set is a resubmittal, and after construction starts it is a field change.
The firm resolved many of the major issues before submitting the permit set, and permitting took a typical amount of time for a project of this size.
This case study compares the firm's internal review with Helonic's findings on the same set. It does not measure plan check comments, so it shows what an internal review can miss rather than a counted drop in permit comments. For the steps to take before any submittal, see the pre-submittal plan review checklist.
Milind is the co-founder and CEO of Helonic, where he leads product and go-to-market for AI-powered construction drawing analysis. He works closely with general contractors, project managers, estimators, and owners to understand how drawing quality drives project outcomes - and where AI can reduce RFIs, change orders, and rework. Milind has interviewed hundreds of construction professionals across project delivery roles, from preconstruction estimators at ENR top-400 contractors to facilities directors at institutional owners, and uses those conversations to shape both product direction and the way Helonic talks about the work.
How this page was researched: Project figures (set size, number of Helonic runs, the firm's internal comment count, and Helonic's major-issue count) come from the project. The firm and project are anonymous at the firm's request, and the project name, address, and costs are withheld.
Last reviewed by Milind Sagaram · October 2026
More on reviewing multifamily and mixed-use drawing sets.
Unit repetition, plumbing stacks, and accessibility on multifamily sets.
Where structure and MEP routes change between uses.
Ten steps in the order a plans examiner reads the set.
QA/QC on consultant coordination before the set goes out.