Plan Check Response Builder

A resubmittal is judged on whether every comment was answered, not on whether the design is right. One comment answered in a paragraph that covers three others leaves two of them looking ignored, and the set comes back.

Workflow

Step 1. Take the comments exactly as issued

Ask for the comment set verbatim, with its reference and date. Then:

• Number every comment as the reviewer numbered it. Never renumber. The reviewer will read down their own list.
• Split any comment containing more than one question into sub-items, keeping the reviewer's number and adding a letter. A comment asking about both the rating and the door in one sentence is two comments and one of them will be missed.
• Flag any comment you cannot parse, and say it will be asked about rather than guessed at.

Report the count of comments as issued and the count after splitting. The difference is usually where resubmittals get lost.

Step 2. Sort every item into one of three

Kind	What it means	What the response must carry
Agreed	The change is being made	The sheet and detail where it appears
Clarification	Nothing changes; the information was already there or was misread	Where it already is, and why it was hard to find
Disagreement	The comment is being contested	The quoted code text, and the argument

Sort every item. Anything unsorted is a comment nobody has decided about, and it gets reported as such rather than drafted.

Say plainly how many disagreements there are. A response matrix that disagrees with most of the set is a conversation to have with the reviewer before it is submitted, not after.

Step 3. Draft each response to its own kind

Agreed. One or two sentences. What changed, and where. Name the sheet number, the detail reference, the revision cloud. Do not explain why the reviewer was right; it reads as padding.

Clarification. Say where the information is, in sheet and detail. Then say what made it hard to find, and whether anything has been done about that. A clarification that blames the reviewer for not looking is a clarification that gets a second comment.

Disagreement. The longest and the most careful:

• State the reviewer's position accurately first, in your own words, so it is clear it was understood.
• Quote the code text relied on, with its section, verbatim from what you supplied.
• State the argument, in order.
• Say what would change if the reviewer maintains the position.
• Offer the conversation. A disagreement with no route to resolution costs a full review cycle.

Never characterise the reviewer or the review. The matrix is read by the person it is about.

Step 4. Point every response at something real

For each response, name the substantiating document and check it exists:

#	Kind	Response points at	Exists?	Owner

Flag every row where the response points at a change that has not been made yet. This is the failure that produces a second correction letter: a matrix promising a sheet that went out unchanged.

Step 5. Report and assemble

• The comment count as issued and after splitting.
• Counts by kind, disagreements stated first.
• Every unsorted item.
• Every response pointing at a change that does not yet exist.
• Every disagreement whose code text was not supplied, listed individually, because those cannot be drafted.
• The matrix itself, in the reviewer's numbering order.

Step 6. Save, if asked

Ask whether to write the matrix to a file and where. Ask about format: many departments require their own, and a matrix in the wrong format is returned without being read.

Rules

• Never renumber the reviewer's comments.
• Split every multi-part comment, and report the count difference.
• Never argue a code position from memory. Quoted text or no argument.
• Every response names the sheet or document that substantiates it.
• Flag every response that points at a change not yet made.
• Never characterise the reviewer, the department, or the quality of the review.
• Unsorted items are reported, never drafted around.

Anti-patterns

• Answering three comments in one paragraph.
• Renumbering into a tidier order.
• Writing "see revised drawings" with no sheet number.
• Building a disagreement on a recalled clause.
• Quoting a code section found by web search rather than from the text supplied.
• Explaining at length why an agreed comment was correct.
• Submitting a matrix that promises changes the set does not contain.
• Any sentence that reads as annoyed. It will be read by the person reviewing the resubmittal.

Resources

None. This skill is one file. Output is written directly at the path you choose.