Code analysis sheets and code compliance memos: what AI teams value

How does a code analysis sheet differ from a code compliance memo?#

A code analysis sheet is a drawing-set summary of how a building meets the adopted codes, while a code compliance memo is a narrative explaining how the design team resolved a specific code question. The sheet shows conclusions at a glance for the plan reviewer and the contractor. The memo shows the reasoning a senior architect used to get there.

Both are routine at architecture firms, and they are usually filed in different places. The sheet lives in the Revit model and the issued drawing set, often in the general series. Memos live in project folders, email threads with code consultants and correspondence with the authority having jurisdiction. A memo that follows a fixed outline, like the one below, is far easier to find, compare and reuse.

• 1Question: the code issue in one sentence and the project condition that raised it.
• 2Code basis: the governing code and edition, the local amendments, and any earlier interpretation from the same authority having jurisdiction.
• 3Analysis: the options considered, the section references relied on, and the reasoning that decided the outcome.
• 4Outcome: the conclusion, the plan reviewer's concurrence or comment, the date and the author's role.

A building code analysis template outline#

A building code analysis template should walk through the same sequence on every project, so each sheet can be read and compared the same way. The outline below follows the order most plan reviewers expect to see.

• 1Project data: scope of work, building use, and whether it is new construction or an alteration.
• 2Governing codes: building, fire, energy, accessibility, plumbing and mechanical, each with its edition.
• 3Local amendments and jurisdiction-specific ordinances that modify the model codes.
• 4Occupancy classification analysis, including the separated or nonseparated mixed-use approach.
• 5Construction type and the fire-resistance ratings it requires.
• 6Allowable height and area calculation, with any frontage or sprinkler increases used.
• 7Occupant load, egress capacity, travel distance and number of exits per floor.
• 8Life safety plan references: rated walls, exit paths, fire separations and smoke compartments.
• 9Accessibility approach and plumbing fixture calculation.
• 10Interpretations, variances or alternate methods agreed with the authority having jurisdiction.

What makes a code analysis useful to an AI team?#

A code analysis is useful to an AI team when it shows which rule applied, which version of the rule, and why the design team reached its conclusion. Developers building code-checking and plan-review tools generally need examples of expert reasoning under real conditions, not restatements of the code.

Three details separate a strong record from a weak one. The edition matters because requirements change between code cycles. Local amendments matter because jurisdictions modify the model codes. Rationale matters because two qualified architects can reach different answers on the same question, and the reasoning is what a model has to learn.

The code text itself is third-party content#

Model code text is third-party content: the International Code Council publishes the International Building Code, and NFPA publishes standards such as the Life Safety Code. Code-writing organizations generally assert copyright in their published text, and the legal treatment of codes adopted into law has been contested, so counsel should assess any package that reproduces code language.

The practical approach is to keep section references and the firm's own analysis while removing quoted passages. A memo that names the section and explains how it applied is still complete without the code language, and the reasoning is the part the firm actually authored.

The same caution applies to code commentary, handbooks and paid code research services. Excerpts pasted from those sources into memos should be identified during preparation and usually removed.

Plan review comments close the loop#

Plan review comments close the loop because they show whether the authority having jurisdiction accepted the firm's analysis. A code analysis followed by the reviewer's comment and the firm's response letter forms a complete decision record: the question, the expert answer, the challenge and the resolution.

These records are scattered. Permit portals hold reviewer comments, project folders hold response letters, and revised sheets carry clouds and revision tags. Linking them by permit number or project number is often the largest preparation task.

Rights need the same care. Comment letters from public agencies may be public records, but the drawings and project details they reference belong to client projects, and client agreements may carry confidentiality terms. Treat each record type separately during rights review.

Illustrative: an architecture firm reviews its code memo archive#

Illustrative: a fictional architecture firm designs mixed-use, light industrial and tenant improvement projects. Its code analysis sheets come from Revit templates, its code memos sit in a SharePoint library organized by project, and its permit comments are spread across email and downloaded portal PDFs.

The COO asks whether the archive could support a licensing conversation. A first pass shows that newer memos name the edition and amendments while older ones do not, and that response letters are linked to reviewer comments on most recent projects but few older ones.

The firm scopes only projects with complete memo, comment and response chains. It plans to strip quoted code text and client identifiers, leaves undated memos out until they can be dated from the permit record, and excludes projects whose client agreements carry strict confidentiality terms.

How to prepare code records for licensing#

Preparing code records for licensing follows the same order on every project: confirm rights first, remove what the firm did not author, then remove what identifies people and places.

• 1Confirm the client agreement allows internal records to be used beyond the project, or carve the project out.
• 2Remove quoted code text, commentary excerpts and paid research content, keeping section references.
• 3Replace client names, addresses, parcel numbers and permit numbers with consistent keys.
• 4Remove names of reviewers, inspectors and staff, keeping their roles.
• 5Keep the edition, amendments, rationale and outcome on every record.

How SourceX handles code analysis records#

SourceX handles code records through the SourceX five-step transaction: Supply, Rights, Preparation, Approval and Delivery. Rights review comes before any preparation, so projects with restrictive client terms are removed before anyone spends time on redaction.

Each package that proceeds carries a SourceX Evidence Packet recording provenance, licensing rights, permitted use, the privacy record and release authorization. The firm approves the final scope, and the records remain the firm's: they are licensed for defined uses, not sold.