Use case · Cross-document validation
Connected engineering documents checked against each other as well as against the standard, so a discrepancy no single reviewer could see is raised and traced to the stage that introduced it.
The problem
The datasheet passes its review. The isometric passes its review. Each was checked by someone competent against the right standard, and neither contains an error.
One says four inch and the other says six. Nobody was looking at both at the same time, because nobody's job is both.
A document review asks whether this document is right. It cannot ask whether it agrees with a document someone else is reviewing this week.
The discrepancy has no owner until it reaches the fabricator, who owns it immediately.
What it checks
A value stated in five documents should be the same value five times. Where it is not, the finding names every document that carries it and shows which ones disagree.
This is a different question from which requirement governs. That one is settled first.
SEE PRECEDENCE INTELLIGENCE →Illustrative. Two documents carry the same wrong value, which is what makes it look correct to whoever checks them next.
Attribution
A discrepancy found at fabrication has already travelled through several documents, and establishing which stage introduced it becomes its own investigation.
Because every document is checked against what preceded it, the finding can name the point where the value changed rather than the point where someone noticed.
Where the value changed
States 4 in. Governing, and consistent with the line list.
Carries 4 in forward correctly.
States 6 in. This is where the value changed.
Inherits 6 in from the isometric and propagates it.
ILLUSTRATIVE ATTRIBUTION
Where this is today
Documents run against the standards that govern them today, and each finding already carries its clause and its source. What is new is comparing the documents themselves.
Clause by clause, with the governing reference and the evidence attached to every finding.
What moved between two issues of the same sheet, ranked so the reviewer starts at the top.
So a comparison has a governing value to measure the others against.
Differences raised across the connected set, and the stage that introduced one identified.
Related
Loading the project now means the comparison has something to work with when it arrives.
FAQ
It is the check that connected engineering documents agree with each other as well as with the standard. A parameter stated in several documents is compared across all of them, and a difference is raised as a finding with every document that carries it named.
Precedence settles which requirement governs when documents disagree about what is required. Cross-document validation checks whether documents agree about what was stated. One is about authority, the other about consistency.
Not yet. Checking each document against the standards that govern it runs today, as does comparing two revisions of the same drawing.
The ones connected by a shared parameter within a project, such as a specification, a line list, a datasheet, a drawing and a take-off that all state the same value.
That is the point of it. Because each document is checked against what preceded it, the finding can name the stage where a value changed rather than the stage where someone noticed.
Get the project loaded and the standards library in place. The comparison needs a populated project to work across, and the document-level review pays for itself before then.
Next step
Document-level review earns its keep today, and it is the same document set the comparison will run across when it arrives.