Loading
Representative report format
The example below is constructed from fictional drawings to illustrate the way a finding can direct attention to its supporting sources. It is not a client case study, an actual audit output or a certified design review.
Output
Potential inconsistency and source references.
Evidence review
Candidate finding checked for supporting evidence before reporting.
Professional decision
The architect verifies the actual project requirement and decides action.
Fictional report extract · DOC-004-type comparison
Two fictional documents refer to the same door but record different fire ratings. This indicates a potential coordination inconsistency for the practice to investigate—not which rating is compliant or correct.
Source 01 · Floor plan
A-101 · Door D-012
FD60
Fictional plan annotation
Source 02 · Door schedule
A-601 · Door D-012
FD30
Fictional schedule entry
Why it was raised
The same identified door has inconsistent recorded attributes across two included sources.
Suggested investigation
Check the applicable design information and agreed project requirements, then confirm which source record should be corrected, if any.
Other current check-type examples
Example 01
Example 02
Example 03
Example 04
Evidence for attention, not approval to issue.
Soft Matter applies selected checks and reviews candidate findings for evidence quality. It does not determine correct fire ratings, certify statutory compliance, guarantee the detection of errors or replace professional architectural judgement. Absence of a finding is not proof that a package is complete or coordinated.