Should You Run AI Drawing Review on a DD Set?
Helonic is an AI construction drawing analysis platform for general contractors providing preconstruction services on design development sets. Running AI drawing review on a design development set is worth it for a short list of checks. A DD set fixes the layout and the big systems, and leaves most details, schedules, and specs unfinished. Run the checks that match what has been decided, and wait on the rest.
Direct answer. Run Helonic or any AI drawing review tool on a DD set for egress and occupancy layout, fire separations, major MEP space, and missing disciplines. Hold dimension, detail callout, spec, and schedule checks until construction documents. On DD those findings mostly point at things nobody has drawn yet.
Which checks are worth running on DD?
| Check | On DD | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Egress paths, occupancy, and travel distance | Run | Layout is set at DD. Moving a stair later is expensive. |
| Fire separations and rated assemblies on plan | Run | Wall types are usually assigned by DD, even if details are not. |
| Major MEP space: shafts, mechanical rooms, ceiling depth | Run | Catches a plenum that cannot fit the duct before anyone sizes it. |
| Sheet index against scope | Run | Shows which disciplines are missing before pricing starts. |
| Dimensions and detail callouts | Wait for CDs | Most details are not drawn yet, so every callout looks broken. |
| Spec against drawings | Wait for CDs | DD specs are often an outline. Conflicts are mostly placeholders. |
| Schedules against plans | Wait for CDs | Door, fixture, and equipment schedules are usually incomplete. |
Helonic's egress compliance checks are the ones most worth running this early. A stair that has to move at 50% DD costs a redraw. The same stair moved after IFC costs a redesign of three floors.
Why is the rest noise until CDs?
A DD set is incomplete on purpose. A tool reading it will flag every missing detail and every outline spec section, and each of those findings is correct and useless. The reviewer spends the afternoon dismissing placeholders.
That is also why a DD set makes a poor pilot. Scoring a tool on unfinished drawings tells you nothing about how it handles a bid set, as covered in which bid package is a bad first pilot.
Who should get the DD findings?
The design team, as review comments. A DD finding is input to the next design phase. It should not become an RFI, because nothing has been issued for construction and there is no contract question to answer yet.
- Send layout and life-safety findings to the architect with the DD comment set.
- Send space findings to the MEP engineer before they size systems.
- Give missing-discipline findings to the estimator so the budget carries an allowance.
How does a DD run help later?
When the CD set arrives, compare it to the DD set. Helonic's revision comparison shows what changed between the two, so the team can check whether DD comments were picked up. The differences between later sets are in permit set vs IFC set.
Run the full review on the CD or bid set, with every discipline and the spec book, per what files you need before the first review. Test the tool on that kind of set using how to pilot AI drawing review software, and check which phases a vendor supports against what to look for in an AI construction drawing review platform.
Practitioner insight
“First time we ran it on DD I got three hundred comments and most of them were 'detail 5 on A-501 doesn't exist.' Yeah, I know, it's DD. Now we only run egress and shafts that early and it's actually useful.”
Conversations with preconstruction managers at CM-at-risk firms providing design-phase services on institutional projects.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should you run AI drawing review on a design development set?
Why are detail and spec findings noise on a DD set?
Should DD findings become RFIs?
Is a DD set a good pilot for AI drawing review?
Milind Sagaram
Co-founder & CEO, HelonicMilind is the co-founder and CEO of Helonic, where he leads product and go-to-market for AI-powered construction drawing analysis. He works closely with general contractors, project managers, estimators, and owners to understand how drawing quality drives project outcomes - and where AI can reduce RFIs, change orders, and rework. Milind has interviewed hundreds of construction professionals across project delivery roles, from preconstruction estimators at ENR top-400 contractors to facilities directors at institutional owners, and uses those conversations to shape both product direction and the way Helonic talks about the work.
- Construction project delivery and preconstruction
- RFI and change order economics
- Owner and GC workflows for drawing QA/QC
- Estimating risk and bid-stage scope assessment
Last reviewed by Milind Sagaram · October 2026