Engineering and architecture
QA/QC review comments at engineering firms: AI value and rights
By SourceX Editorial · Reviewed by Noah Loul ·
Short answer
QA/QC review comments at engineering firms are valuable to AI developers when each comment is linked to its resolution: the finding, its location in the deliverable, the designer's response, the disposition and the backcheck. Firms can often license their own internal comments after de-identification, subject to client contracts, while client, peer-review and agency comments belong to their authors.
Key takeaways
- A comment becomes a usable example only when it is tied to its response, disposition and backcheck.
- Internal checks, coordination reviews and principal reviews are usually the firm's own records; client, agency and peer-review comments are not.
- Where the client owns or controls the deliverable, carry small crops or structured descriptions rather than the sheets themselves.
- Exclude projects with open or threatened claims, and talk to counsel and the professional liability broker before scoping.
- Keep reviewer discipline and seniority as labels, but remove names, seals and license numbers.
What makes QA/QC review comments useful to AI developers?#
QA/QC review comments are useful to AI developers because they record experienced engineers catching errors before deliverables leave the firm. Each comment points to a specific problem in a specific place, such as a load combination missing from a calculation, a duct clashing with a beam or a drawing note contradicting the specification, and the chain shows how it was fixed.
That is the material used to train and evaluate review assistants: models that read a drawing set or calculation package and flag the issues a senior reviewer would raise. Published documents rarely show the error and the correction together; internal QA records do.
The records also show how review practice differs by stage and discipline. A structural calculation check, an MEP coordination review and a principal's review of a complete set catch different kinds of errors, and a package that labels each comment by review type lets a developer test a model against each one.
The comment-to-resolution chain, link by link#
The comment-to-resolution chain is the unit of value in QA/QC records: a comment becomes a usable example only when it is tied to the deliverable it was written on, the designer's response, the reviewer's disposition and the backcheck. A firm whose comments sit in markup sessions with no responses holds part of the chain; a firm that closes every comment holds all of it.
Disagreements are as useful as corrections. A comment declined with a sound engineering reason shows judgment that a plain error list cannot, so keep declined comments and their reasons. Keep the relative timing too: intervals between issue, comment, response and backcheck show how resolution unfolded without revealing a project's calendar.
| Link | What to capture | Common gap | What is lost without it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliverable under review | Version, issue date and purpose of the issue | Check prints filed with no revision reference | Comments cannot be tied to what the reviewer saw |
| Comment | Sheet, detail or calculation page; discipline; category; reviewer text | Location shown only as a cloud on a scanned sheet | The model cannot be tested on finding the issue in the right place |
| Designer response | Agreed, declined with a reason, or deferred | Changes made on the sheet with nothing written back | The reasoning behind the change |
| Disposition | Reviewer or QA manager accepts or reopens the item | Sessions closed in bulk just before issue | Accepted and abandoned comments look the same |
| Backcheck | Confirmation the change appears in the next issue | Backcheck marks on paper prints that were never scanned | Evidence the error was actually corrected |
| Revised deliverable | Reference to the revised sheet or calculation | Revisions filed under a different folder structure | The before-and-after comparison |
Which review types belong to the firm?#
Whether a QA/QC record belongs to the firm depends mainly on who wrote it: internal checks, coordination reviews and principal reviews are usually the firm's own records, while client, agency and peer-review comments are authored by others. Sort the archive by review type before deciding scope.
| Review type | Typical records | Usual system | Licensing note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discipline calculation check | Checked calculations, checker marks, check prints | PDF markups, spreadsheets, analysis software files | Firm's own record; remove names and seals |
| Interdisciplinary coordination review | Comment matrices, clash reports, coordination notes | Bluebeam, Navisworks, Revit, spreadsheets | Firm's own record; consultant comments need their agreement |
| Senior or principal QA review | Comment logs with responses and dispositions | Bluebeam Studio sessions, QA databases | Usually the most complete chains |
| Constructability review | Comments on sequencing and buildability | Markups and meeting notes | May include contractor input |
| Client review | Owner comments and the firm's responses | Comment matrices, email | Client-authored comments; check the contract |
| Agency plan check | Jurisdiction comment letters and response letters | PDF correspondence, permit portals | Agency-authored; treat as third-party content |
| Third-party peer review | Peer reviewer reports and responses | PDF reports | Reviewer-authored; needs that party's agreement |
Client-deliverable rights caveats#
The central rights caveat for QA/QC records is that the comments describe a deliverable the firm may not own outright. Depending on the contract, the drawings and calculations under review may belong to the client, or be licensed to it under confidentiality terms that may also reach the project information quoted in comments.
A workable rule is to license the firm's own comments, responses and dispositions, and to carry only as much of the deliverable as each comment needs: a cropped detail, a single calculation line or a structured description. Markups on scanned sheets need image redaction. The open-source Presidio toolkit includes a module for redacting personal details in images, but a person should still check every sample, especially for seals, license numbers and title blocks that a generic scanner may not treat as personal details.
- Firm retains ownership and the confidentiality clause is designation-based: comments, responses and dispositions are usually candidates after de-identification.
- Contract assigns deliverables to the client: use structured descriptions instead of images, and have counsel confirm the comments themselves may be used.
- Confidentiality clause covers all project information: exclude, or ask the client for written consent covering de-identified internal records.
- A consultant's sheets were under review: include only the firm's own comments, and seek the consultant's agreement where its content is quoted.
- Public agency or security-sensitive project: exclude pending a separate review.
What principals worry about, and how firms address it#
Principals' main worry about QA/QC records is that they document errors, even though they are errors caught before issue. The concern is reasonable and is better handled with explicit exclusions and approvals than with general reassurance. None of the steps below removes risk entirely, so the decision rests with the firm's principals after counsel and the professional liability broker have weighed in.
| Concern | Why it arises | How firms usually address it |
|---|---|---|
| Use in a dispute | Comments record mistakes on real projects | Exclude projects with open or threatened claims and de-identify the rest; review the plan with counsel and the broker |
| Client recognition | A client may recognize its own building or project | Remove names, addresses and distinctive features; exclude projects whose plans identify the building |
| Staff exposure | Comments show individual reviewers' and designers' errors | Replace names with discipline and seniority; leave out any performance records |
| Third-party content | Comments quote consultants, clients or agencies | Keep only the firm's own text unless the other author agrees |
| Scope creep | Review folders also hold deliverables and correspondence | Agree the record types in writing; the firm approves the final scope before delivery |
Illustrative: a building engineering firm tests its QA chains#
Illustrative: a fictional building engineering firm with mechanical, electrical and fire protection studios wants to know whether its QA history is worth licensing. The managing principal asks the QA director to sample principal review sessions from several years of commercial and industrial projects.
The sample splits cleanly in two. Before the firm adopted a written QA procedure, principal reviews were check prints with clouds and initials but no written responses. Afterwards, reviews ran in Bluebeam Studio sessions where nearly every comment carries a response, a disposition and a backcheck. Client review matrices and agency plan check letters sit in the same project folders.
The firm scopes only the period after the procedure was adopted: principal review chains and coordination comments from projects whose contracts keep ownership with the firm and use designation-based confidentiality. Client comments, agency letters and projects with open claims stay out. The procedure document, stripped of names, goes into the package so a buyer can see how comment categories were defined, and the principal briefs the firm's broker before approving the scope.
How SourceX approaches QA/QC records#
SourceX approaches QA/QC records through the SourceX five-step transaction. In Rights, each review type is sorted by author and contract; in Preparation, comment chains are de-identified and excerpts trimmed to the agreed standard; and the firm approves the result before Delivery.
Each comment package carries a SourceX Evidence Packet covering provenance, licensing rights, permitted use, the privacy record and release authorization, which shows which comments were included and which were left with their authors.
Frequently asked questions
Could licensed QA comments be used against the firm in a dispute?
It is a fair concern. Firms usually exclude projects with open or threatened claims and de-identify the rest so a project is hard to trace, then keep a record of exactly what was licensed. Discuss the plan with counsel and your professional liability broker before scoping.
Are agency plan check comments public records?
In many jurisdictions they may be obtainable through public records requests, but that does not make them the firm's to license. They are written by the agency, so treat them as third-party content and leave them out unless counsel advises otherwise.
What if our comments exist only as PDF markups?
Markups can still be used. Export comment lists from the markup tool where possible, or extract text from the annotations, and link each comment to its sheet and revision. Responses recorded only in later revisions take more work to reconstruct.
Do we need to keep reviewer names?
No. Buyers usually need the reviewer's discipline and seniority, not identity. Stable pseudonyms keep the ability to see that one reviewer made several comments, or that a reviewer's comments changed as the program matured, without revealing who it was.
Which review records should a firm look at first?
Start with senior or principal QA reviews that close comments with responses and dispositions, because they usually form the most complete chains. Coordination reviews come next. Calculation checks and constructability notes are worth adding once the firm knows how its older records were kept and how much reconstruction they need.
Are calculation checks with no written comments worth including?
Usually less so on their own. Checker marks without text show that something was flagged but not why. They become useful when the revised calculation can be compared with the checked version, which lets the change itself stand in for the missing comment.
Sources
- Presidio is an open-source, MIT-licensed SDK for PII identification and anonymization in text and images, and includes a module that redacts PII in images. Source
Related resources
See if your company qualifies
A short company assessment. No data uploads are needed.