Design review comments and redlines: licensing QA/QC review histories

Why do AI developers want design review comments?#

Design review comments are wanted because they capture expert judgment in a form software can learn from: a specific problem on a specific sheet, named by someone qualified to see it, followed by the fix. A finished drawing set shows the answer. The review history shows the reasoning that produced it.

Developers building plan-checking, coordination-review and drawing-QA tools need examples of what senior reviewers flag and how design teams respond. Code text and textbook examples do not teach a model that a beam callout conflicts with a section on another sheet, or that a rated wall assembly is missing at a shaft. Years of redlines from a working firm do.

That makes review histories valuable for what they say about judgment rather than for the design itself. The design can often be masked or left out while the comment, its context and its resolution stay useful.

Where review histories live inside an A/E firm#

Review histories at most engineering and architecture firms are scattered across markup tools, spreadsheets and project folders, so the first job is finding them. Few firms keep comments in one database, and fewer link each comment to what happened next.

Markup exports and comment-response matrices are usually the richest starting point because they already hold structure. Scanned hand redlines are the hardest; plan for transcription or leave them for a later phase.

• 1Bluebeam Revu markup lists and Studio Session records, which can usually be exported to a spreadsheet with comment text, author, page label, status and date; check what your version exports.
• 2PDF redline sets saved at each QA/QC milestone, often named by phase and review date.
• 3Comment-response matrices in Excel, where the reviewer's note, the designer's reply and the closure status sit on one row.
• 4QA/QC checklists and sign-off forms stored in SharePoint, Newforma or the project folder.
• 5Issue logs in Procore, Autodesk Construction Cloud or similar platforms when review continues into construction.
• 6Scanned hand redlines from senior reviewers, which are valuable but need transcription before they can be packaged.

What a licensable review package contains#

A licensable review package is a set of comment records, each carrying enough context that a buyer can see what was flagged, where, by what kind of reviewer, and how it was closed. Field names vary by firm, but these elements should be present or recoverable.

The resolution and backcheck fields matter most. A comment marked accepted, rejected or deferred with a short reason, and then confirmed by the reviewer at the next issue, tells a model whether the reviewer's concern held up. Comments with no recorded outcome are worth far less.

Which review records are worth less, and why#

Review records are worth less when they lack context, carry no outcome, or were written by someone other than the firm. Most project folders mix all three kinds together, so sorting them early saves rework later.

Redaction rules for review comments#

Redaction for review comments focuses on people, clients and places, because the technical content is the part a buyer needs. The goal is a comment that still reads as an engineering judgment but no longer identifies the project, the owner or the reviewer.

Automated tools find many names and contact details, but engineers write in abbreviations, initials and shorthand that detection misses. Plan for a human pass on a sample from every package before approving release.

• 1Replace reviewer and designer names, initials and markup author fields with roles, and keep the name-to-role key inside the firm only.
• 2Remove client, owner and project names, project numbers and site addresses from comment text and metadata.
• 3Strip title blocks, seals, stamps and signatures from any sheet images that travel with comments.
• 4Keep discipline prefixes in sheet numbers but drop numbering schemes that identify the job.
• 5Clear file paths and server names that markup exports often carry in a source or document column.
• 6Search replies for names, phone numbers and email addresses, which reviewers often type into threads.
• 7Generalize site-specific details, such as a street or a named neighboring building, when the technical point survives without them.
• 8Leave out security-sensitive content, such as access control layouts or critical infrastructure locations, rather than trying to redact it.

Rights questions to settle before review histories leave the firm#

Rights to review histories depend mainly on client contracts, because comments describe client projects even when the firm wrote every word. Standard owner-architect and owner-engineer forms generally leave instruments of service with the design firm, but negotiated terms decide which projects can actually be included.

Read the executed agreement for each candidate project, not the firm's template, and record the answer for each point below. A project with an unresolved question stays out of the first package.

• 1Confidentiality: how confidential information is defined, and whether de-identified comments still fall within it.
• 2Ownership: whether the agreement assigned documents to the client or added work-made-for-hire language.
• 3AI riders and data security exhibits: any bar on using project data to train third-party models.
• 4Consultants and outside peer reviewers: their comments are their own work under their own agreements.
• 5Staff: what employment agreements and the handbook say about firm records, and whether senior reviewers have been told.
• 6Claims: projects in claims or disputes stay out, and the firm's professional liability broker should hear about the program first.

Illustrative: a civil-structural firm packages its QA/QC history#

Illustrative: a fictional regional civil and structural engineering firm ran internal QA/QC reviews in Bluebeam Studio for years and tracked closure in Excel comment-response matrices. Its CEO wanted to know whether that history had value outside the firm.

The operations lead exported markup lists for completed projects and matched them to the matrices by sheet and review date. Projects for owners with confidentiality riders were set aside, along with reviews led by clients, by outside peer reviewers and by building departments.

The remaining records became a candidate package of comment-resolution pairs tagged by discipline, comment type, reviewer role and milestone. Names were replaced with roles, and sheet images were dropped in favor of text references. The CEO approved a metadata-only fit check before anything else was shared.

How SourceX handles review-history packages#

SourceX treats a review history as one package in the SourceX five-step transaction: Supply, Rights, Preparation, Approval and Delivery. The fit check uses metadata only, such as systems, record types and years covered, so no comments leave the firm at that stage.

If the package proceeds, rights are reviewed project by project, preparation removes names and identifiers, and the firm approves the final scope. The SourceX Evidence Packet records provenance, licensing rights, permitted use, the privacy record and release authorization for that package.