01
Document inconsistencies
Differences in revisions, issue information and document records.
Loading
Loading
Pre-issue package QA for UK architectural practices
Soft Matter is an AI-assisted, human-reviewed consistency-checking service for architectural PDF packages before issue. Defined checks compare selected information across drawings, schedules, registers and related documents. Potential inconsistencies are presented with supporting evidence for the project team to review.
Illustrative package review
Calder Yard — Block B · fictional package; no client information.
Example review
Controlled validation example
67
documents reviewed
5
baseline findings
This example is drawn from Soft Matter's controlled validation programme. The figures reflect the current human-reviewed baseline for the package and illustrate the type of package-level evidence presented for review.
Connected package
Review the whole package, not just individual drawings.
A fictional package contains a floor plan, detail sheet, door schedule and drawing register. Lines connect related information across sheets. As the animation progresses, examples illustrate a missing reference, unresolved note and differing values. Potential issues require professional review; this is not a live audit or certified result.
Fictional illustration. Potential issues are checked by a person; this is not a live audit.
Package review
Architectural information is connected. A drawing, schedule and register may describe the same element, but their records do not always agree. Soft Matter applies defined checks to selected relationships within the submitted package.
01
Differences in revisions, issue information and document records.
02
Information referred to within the package that may be absent or difficult to reconcile.
03
Where related project information does not appear to agree across the package.
04
Placeholders, incomplete decisions and other items that may have remained within an issue package.
The review
01
An agreed PDF package is submitted through the private portal following invitation and onboarding.
02
The submitted drawings, schedules, registers and related PDF information are checked for selected inconsistencies.
03
Potential findings are reviewed for evidence quality before client reporting.
04
An evidence-led findings report is returned for the practice to assess within its own QA process.
Candidate findings are checked for their supporting evidence before being included in the report. The practice decides which underlying design information is correct and what action is needed.
Processing time varies with package size and complexity, and no fixed turnaround time is promised. A review with no reportable findings is not confirmation that the package is complete or correct.
Soft Matter provides supplementary document-consistency review. It does not certify compliance, verify technical design, approve fire ratings or replace the architect's professional QA and issue responsibilities.
Why it matters
A defined second review can help teams direct professional attention towards selected inconsistencies before issue. Its purpose is to support existing checking procedures, not to automate design decisions.
Focus: direct attention to potentially conflicting or unresolved information. Evidence: show the sources behind each reported finding. Repeatability: apply the same defined checks to successive submitted packages.
These are intended workflow benefits. External time savings, reductions in rework and repeat-use value have not yet been established by pilot evidence.
Project intelligence — R&D
Architectural projects develop through successive issues. Drawings, references and decisions change. The longer-term research direction explores how evidence-linked project information could be understood across review cycles rather than treating every issue as an isolated set of PDFs.
Current service: defined package QA. Longer-term development: connected project information and change over time. The full Project Intelligence vision is not a released pilot capability.
Developed from practice
Soft Matter was founded by a UK-registered architect to address evolving information, repeated issue cycles and the need to review related documents before issue.
The current defined checks have been evaluated using controlled development and release-verification packages. Equivalent Stage 3/4 validation and externally measured practice outcomes have not yet been established.
Evidence & reporting
A drawing and a schedule can disagree. Soft Matter brings the relevant references together so the architect knows where to investigate; it does not decide which design instruction should govern.
Different ratings shown for the same door. The design team decides which source is correct.
Fictional example. Soft Matter highlights the discrepancy; it does not select or approve a fire rating.
Security & data
Architectural information can be commercially and operationally sensitive. Controlled handling of submitted files forms part of the service design and the individual pilot agreement.
Core structured application data and Soft Matter-controlled PDF processing use London-region infrastructure. Supporting application, workflow, AI and workspace services may operate internationally. Final client-specific handling, provider terms and restrictions must be reviewed and agreed before any external project data is accepted.
Professional judgement
Soft Matter doesn't tell you whether a project is good or bad. It tells you where another look may be worthwhile.
FAQ
Select a question to read more.
No. The service is an additional defined consistency review. The architectural practice remains responsible for design decisions, technical coordination, QA and issue approval.
Submitted PDF drawings, schedules, registers and related documents. Current defined checks focus on document control, package references, missing information and selected inter-document discrepancies.
The current controlled package-review workflow accepts PDF files. Actual external submissions require agreed scope and invited portal access.
Processing time depends on package characteristics and evidence review; no turnaround is guaranteed for a future pilot.
No. The defined checks do not amount to complete verification, and a report with no findings does not establish that a package is correct or ready for issue.
Yes. Candidate findings are checked for evidence quality before client reporting. This is not professional design approval.
You can register interest in discussing a controlled pilot. Participation, pricing or any fee waiver, scope, security/data terms and the start date are agreed individually once readiness approvals are complete.
Current configured active-source retention options are 0, 7 or 30 days, selected as part of the agreed review. Deletion occurs at the appropriate safe point; reports, minimal audit records and provider logs can have different retention periods.
No UK-only claim is made for the complete provider chain. Supabase core structured data and directly controlled Google Cloud PDF processing are configured in London; supporting providers can use international infrastructure.
No. Soft Matter does not replace the practice’s professional or statutory responsibilities.
Pilot discussions
We are speaking with UK architectural practices interested in evaluating whether evidence-led consistency checking could support their existing pre-issue QA. A suitable package, scope, professional responsibilities and review process would be agreed before participation.
The service is in controlled development and pilot preparation. Enquiries are welcome, but client activation and the processing of genuine project material have not yet opened. Participation terms, including any fee waiver, will be confirmed individually.
Please do not send architectural drawings or confidential project information with your initial enquiry. The applicable data-handling and retention arrangements will be provided before an approved pilot proceeds.
Prefer to talk first? We are happy to discuss an introductory call, or a CPD-style session on pre-issue information QA.