The last correction list
Think about the last plan check you went through.
- How many comments came back?
- How long did it take you to answer them — and how much of that was drawing, and how much was writing?
- Did any of them come back a second time?
Three comments on your own set
Silverwood Drive, returned from plan check.
Comment 1 · Sheet L2. The proposed impervious surface table does not itemise the artificial turf. Confirm whether the 90 SF of turf is included in the 1,209 SF total, and revise the table to show it as a separate line item.
Comment 2 · Sheet L5. The rear retaining wall scales to approximately 4’-2" in height. Walls exceeding 4’-0" require an engineered design. Provide calculations stamped by a California-licensed engineer, or revise the wall height.
Comment 3 · Sheet L0. General notes state that all dimensions shown are approximate and that the drawing is not a survey. Setback compliance cannot be verified from approximate dimensions. Provide a boundary survey, or dimension the setbacks to the property line from a recorded source.
They are not the same kind of comment, and that is the point.
- Comment 1 wants a clarification and a small change to a table. Nothing about the design moves.
- Comment 2 wants either a design change or an expensive piece of engineering — and it rests on a measurement you may disagree with.
- Comment 3 wants evidence, and it is using a sentence you wrote yourself to argue that your drawing cannot supply it.
Answering all three in the same register — the same length, the same tone, the same amount of deference — is the most common failure, and it is what produces a second round.
The three-move response
Every answer, every time, in this order
| Move | Does what | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Restate | Shows you read it, and fixes your reading of it in writing | Comment 1 asks us to confirm whether artificial turf is included in the proposed total. |
| 2 · Action | Says what has been done, in the present perfect | The table has been revised to show turf as a separate line item. |
| 3 · Locate | Tells the reviewer exactly where to look | See Sheet L2, clouded and marked Delta 4. |
The move designers skip is the third, again. In Unit 7 it was the conclusion; here it is the locator. A reviewer holding a nine-sheet set and forty other jobs will not hunt for your change. If they cannot find it in ten seconds they write the comment again — and now it is a repeat comment, which reads as though you ignored them.
The restate is doing quieter work. An ambiguous comment answered without restating it can be answered correctly for the wrong question, and neither of you finds out until the second round.
Plan-check vocabulary
The words the process itself is made of. Listen and repeat.
What do you already control?
Match each term to what it actually means in the process. Click the term, then its meaning.
Choose the best answer.
1. Which of the three comments is asking you to change the design rather than the drawing?
2. Comment 3 quotes your own general notes back at you. What is the underlying problem?
3. Which answer would a reviewer find easiest to close out?
4. Why restate the comment before answering it?
Answer all three
Your Day One marker for this unit.
Task card
The Silverwood correction list, in front of you, with no template
Write a response to each of the three comments. No preparation, no help.
- Two to four sentences per comment.
- You may disagree with any of them — but say so in writing, as you would send it.
- Keep what you write. Lesson 8 comes back to it.
Read them back
- Did any of your three answers tell the reviewer where to look?
- Did you restate any comment before answering it?
- On comment 2 — did you agree, disagree, or avoid deciding?
- Are all three answers roughly the same length? Should they be?
Before the next lesson
Homework. Bring the Silverwood revisions log — the block in the title area with the numbered triangles and dates. Read the three entries. For each one, try to remember what actually happened, and note how much of it the entry tells you.