Review routine

Quality checklist for comparing plan revisions

This checklist is for teams that want to do more than look at visual markers. It helps turn comparison results into review decisions, documentation, and reliable handover steps for project teams, contractor coordination, and revision control.

Before During After Approval check Warning signs

1. Before the comparison

Verify the file pair. Is it fully clear which version is the reference (A) and which one is new (B)?
Check versioning. Do date, revision index, filename, and project phase match the intended review?
Review page structure. Are page order, sheet size, and orientation basically comparable?
Name the review objective. Is the comparison meant to support approval, clarification, or a formal list of changes?

2. During the comparison

Start in standard mode. Only fine-tune when actual noise or missed findings are visible.
Do not assess markers in isolation. Every relevant marker needs context: component, text, page, and discipline.
Alternate between overlay and split view. What stands out in overlay should still be verified in split or vice versa.
Prioritize critical pages. Safety, cost, schedule, and coordination issues matter more than cosmetic display changes.
Separate text from object changes. This keeps later reporting and discussion far clearer.

3. After the comparison

Document relevant findings with page references. Avoid broad summaries without traceable anchors.
Separate accepted from unresolved points. That makes it obvious what was approved and what still needs follow-up.
Archive exports and notes. Store results where the project team will actually find them later.
Record responsibility. Who reviewed the files, when, and for which purpose?

4. An approval is only robust when...

Formal conditions are met

The correct file pair was compared.
Page count and assignment are plausible.
The exported result can be traced back to the reviewed revision.

Technical conditions are met

Critical markers were actually reviewed in context.
Open issues are documented and assigned.
The decision is not based only on a low marker count.

5. Warning signs of an unreliable comparison

Signal	Possible reason	Next step
Almost every page is covered in markers	Export differences, wrong file pair, or major page shifts	Review settings and challenge the selected documents first
Important text changes are missing	Weak or missing text layer in the PDF	Review text visually and check the quality of the source file
The team cannot interpret the output	Missing page references or no clear decision list	Restructure export notes, comments, and open issues

Recommendation: Keep this checklist with your project review documents. Repeatable documentation quality is often more valuable than a one-off quick comparison.