AI submittal review: check shop drawings and product data against the spec
Helonic is an AI construction drawing analysis platform for architects, engineers, and contractors reviewing construction submittals.
AI submittal review reads a submittal and the specification section it answers to, then checks each requirement in that section against what was submitted. Helonic does this for product data, shop drawings, samples, and substitution requests, and returns a compliance matrix the reviewer works from. It is one part of Helonic's AI construction document review, which also checks drawings and specs against each other.
Direct answer. AI submittal review checks each requirement in the governing spec section against the submitted shop drawings and product data. Helonic marks every requirement as compliant, noncompliant, or not addressed, with the spec paragraph and the submittal page. The architect or engineer of record still reviews, decides, and stamps.
How does AI check a submittal against the spec section?
Helonic finds the governing section, lists its requirements, and checks each one against the package.
- Upload the package and the contract documents. Drop in the submittal (product data, shop drawings, samples, or a substitution request) with the specification and the drawings it answers to. Packages can also come straight from Procore or Autodesk Construction Cloud.
- Find the governing spec section. Helonic matches the submittal to its section number and pulls every requirement out of Parts 1, 2, and 3: performance criteria, referenced standards, listings, dimensions, finishes, and the submittal items the section asks for.
- Check each requirement against the submittal. Every requirement gets a status: shown and compliant, shown and noncompliant, or not addressed. Shop drawings are also read against the contract drawings for dimensions, details, and connections.
- Hand the reviewer a compliance matrix. The output is a requirement-by-requirement matrix with the page and spec paragraph for each finding. The reviewer of record reads it, decides, and writes the disposition.
The spec reading behind step 2 is the same engine as specification analysis, which also flags sections that conflict with the drawings.
What does Helonic check in each type of submittal?
The checks change with the submittal type, because a cut sheet and a shop drawing fail in different ways.
| Submittal | What gets checked |
|---|---|
| Product data and cut sheets | Performance values, ASTM and UL references, fire ratings, and model options against the spec section |
| Shop drawings | Dimensions, details, connections, and member sizes against the contract drawings and schedules |
| Samples, colors, and finishes | Submitted color, texture, and finish against the spec and the finish schedule |
| Substitution requests | The proposed product against the basis-of-design, criterion by criterion, including what the request leaves undocumented |
| Informational and closeout items | Whether the certificates, test reports, warranties, and O&M data the section requires are in the package |
Shop drawing review works best when the contract drawings are in the upload too. For what a human reviewer looks for on the same sheets, see how to review shop drawings.
What is the difference between action and informational submittals?
Action submittals need a disposition from the reviewer of record, while informational submittals are received for the record. Most specs sort their submittal items into these two groups in Part 1 of each section, following Section 01 33 00.
| Action submittal | Informational submittal | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A submittal the architect or engineer must review and return with a disposition | A submittal received for the record, with no approval action expected |
| Typical examples | Shop drawings, product data, samples, substitution requests | Certificates, test and inspection reports, manufacturer instructions, qualifications, warranties, O&M data |
| Who acts on it | Reviewer of record, then the GC returns it to the sub | Logged and filed; the reviewer may comment if something is wrong |
| What Helonic does | Checks it requirement by requirement against the spec and drawings | Checks that each required item is present and matches what the section asks for |
The full list of submittal categories is in the construction submittal types guide.
How does automated submittal review reduce risk for the architect?
It lowers the chance that a noncompliant product gets approved because one requirement was never compared to the submittal. A reviewer under schedule pressure checks the headline values. Helonic checks every line, so these get caught at review instead of in the field:
- Requirements buried in Part 2. A fire rating, a finish, or a referenced standard that sits deep in the section and never gets matched to the cut sheet.
- Submittals that answer the wrong section. A package transmitted under one section number that actually needs to meet a related section or a schedule on the drawings.
- Substitutions with gaps. A proposed product that matches the basis-of-design on the headline values but leaves out data on the rest.
- Shop drawings that drift from the contract set. Dimensions, connections, or details that changed between the design drawings and the fabricator's drawings.
- Spec conflicts the submittal exposes. Two sections, or a section and a drawing note, that ask for different things. These usually need an ASI or an RFI before the submittal can be answered.
Under AIA A201, the architect reviews submittals only for conformance with the information and design concept in the contract documents. The matrix gives a written record of what was checked against what. Spec conflicts found along the way can go out as RFIs through RFI generation.
Where does it fit in the architect and GC review workflow?
Helonic can run at each handoff in the submittal cycle, on either side of the transmittal.
| Stage | What Helonic checks |
|---|---|
| Subcontractor or GC, before transmittal | Check the package against the section so incomplete submittals do not go out and come back as Revise and Resubmit. |
| Architect or engineer, on receipt | Get a requirement-by-requirement matrix to review from, instead of building the cross-reference by hand. |
| Resubmittal | Check that each comment from the last round was answered in the new package. |
| Closeout | Confirm the warranties, O&M manuals, and certificates each section calls for were submitted. |
Helonic does not assign the disposition. Approved, Approved as Noted, Revise and Resubmit, and Rejected stay with the reviewer of record. Packages and findings move through Procore or Autodesk Construction Cloud. How each side uses it is covered on the pages for architects and general contractors.
Practitioner insight
“The first project we ran AI submittal review on, the model flagged that the basis-of-design hollow metal door submittal didn’t carry the 90-minute fire rating called out in our 08 11 13 spec. We caught it before approving. If it had gone to the field, we would have had to re-order doors for an entire wing. That single finding paid for the platform.”
Source: Conversations with project architects and construction administration leads at mid-size architecture firms running healthcare and K-12 projects, synthesized from Helonic’s buyer-side interviews, Q1–Q2 2026.
AI Submittal Review FAQ
What is AI submittal review?
How does Helonic verify submittal compliance against spec sections automatically?
What is the difference between action and informational submittals?
Does Helonic approve or stamp submittals?
How does automated submittal review reduce risk on architectural projects?
Can Helonic build a submittal log from the specification book?
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
How this page was researched: Submittal categories follow CSI MasterFormat Section 01 33 00 (Submittal Procedures). The reviewer's role and the limited purpose of submittal review follow AIA A201 General Conditions, Sections 3.12 and 4.2.7. Review workflow grounded in Helonic\u2019s submittal review work with architects and contractors.
Last reviewed by Milind Sagaram · October 2026