A/E design review — product brief (discovery)
Product context: Estym8 is built from scratch as an AI-first construction preconstruction platform. This brief is a separate job head on the shared plan-reading spine — for design / engineering firms, not GC estimating and not municipal permitting.
Status: Discovery (2026-07-20; refreshed 2026-07-24 with Paul’s extensive notes).
Positioning: Same plan-reading engine; separate product surface preferred for GTM clarity (Estym8 module remains an option if Paul wants one login). Not a bid estimate; not city permit stamp. Can run city-style pre-checks before submit (dual-sided with ClearToPermit rule packs).
Working brand: ClearToIssue — parallel to municipal ClearToPermit. Confirm registrar before buy.
UX: Cohesive design QA workflow (checklist → flags → redlines → revision track) with AI assist — not a chatbot. Same suite rule as ClearToPermit.
Related (public): suite map · ClearToPermit · AI-first positioning · investor overview.
Repo only: paul-notes-construction-ai-suite-2026-07-24.md.
One-liner
Ingest a design set (or revision package) → walk reviewers through a structured QA workflow that flags internal drawing conflicts, completeness gaps vs the firm’s QA checklist, and coordination issues so the A/E can catch problems before they ship to the owner, GC, or AHJ. AI drafts; humans confirm.
Job (and what it is not)
| This product does | This product does not |
|---|---|
| Cross-sheet / discipline coordination flags | Produce a GC BOM or bid price |
| Completeness vs firm QA / deliverable checklist | Replace the PE/architect stamp of responsibility |
| Revision / cloud / supersede conflicts | Auto-approve sealed drawings |
| Citation-backed internal redlines for reviewers | Municipal code enforcement (that’s the city SKU) |
| Human-in-the-loop confirm / dismiss | Invent conflicts without drawing evidence |
Success metric = issues caught pre-issue + review cycle time + trust (false-positive rate), not F4c vs human takeoff.
Who buys / who uses
| Role | Need |
|---|---|
| A/E principal / QA manager | Fewer RFIs after issue; consistent internal review |
| Project architect / engineer of record | Defensible redline list before seal / issue for construction |
| Discipline leads (E / M / P / S / A) | Coordination misses across sheets |
| Paul / design-partner firms | Requirements for v1 checklist + workflow |
Buyer = design / engineering firm (or multi-office practice). User = internal reviewers and discipline leads.
Shared spine vs separate head
Same pattern as municipal:
[ Shared ] [ A/E design-review head ]
folder / PDF ingest → project / phase / revision intake
classify + sheet intel → firm deliverable checklist completeness
legend / schedule / organic → evidence for coordination conflicts
concerns / conflict log → internal redline / comment packages
→ assign, audit, learn from staff pins
Architecture rule: shared packages; separate auth/tenancy/pricing if sold as its own brand — or a tightly scoped Estym8 module if Paul prefers one login for estimating + design QA.
v1 capability sketch (aligned with Paul 2026-07-24)
Paul’s design QA today already mirrors the shared spine: full project ingest → municipality/requirements → inconsistencies / code / constructability → human investigation list → track corrections across submissions.
- Package intake — multi-PDF / folder; revision + design phase labeling (SD → 50/75/90/95 → permit → IFC).
- Document-control pre-check (MVP priority) — title block, address/parcel, sheet index completeness, missing/duplicate sheets, code edition, seals, broken sheet refs (Paul: common immediate rejection).
- Internal conflicts — schedule ≠ plan, callout→detail mismatches, mixed revisions, discipline coordination.
- City-style pre-check (optional) — same rule packs as ClearToPermit (“what the city will bounce”) before submit.
- Tabular comment log — sheet / location / issue / plan ref / code ref / discipline / severity / status (AI pre-populates).
- Reviewer workflow — confirm/dismiss/add; export comment PDF/JSON/spreadsheet.
- Phase memory — retain prior-phase decisions; flag regressions (e.g. electrical room later violated).
- Staff-added findings → gated learning — same as municipal.
Defer: full PE stamp replacement, GC estimating, Revit GA (spike first), deep civil geometry day one.
Discovery questions for Paul — status after 2026-07-24 notes
- Workflow mirrors municipal review + back-check interest — see paul-notes…
- Dual customer: internal QA and pre-submit “city-style” checks
- Document-control / index checks are early wins
- Evidence + code citation required on every flag
- Revit preferred long-term; PDF vector next-best
- Buyer packaging: separate brand vs Estym8 module?
- v1 checklist source: firm standards vs shared municipal packs first?
- Pilot success metric (hours saved, first-pass comment reduction)?
- Integration must-haves (Bluebeam / Autodesk / Procore export)?
- Must-nots (liability language, stamp adjacency)?
Naming (working)
| Rank | Brand | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ClearToIssue | Outcome brand; pairs with municipal ClearToPermit |
| 2 | ReadyToIssue | Completeness / “ready to seal?” |
| 3 | Estym8 Design Review | Module under Estym8 if Paul wants one login |
Tagline patterns: “Catch coordination issues before you issue.” · “Internal design QA on the same plan-reading engine as Estym8.” · “Not an estimate — a pre-issue review assist.”
Portfolio note (investors)
Investor pack (2026-07-22) includes ClearToIssue as adjacent discovery SKU alongside ClearToPermit and Bodi. Validate brand + v1 checklist with Paul; raise still Estym8-anchored.
Document history
| Date | Note |
|---|---|
| 2026-07-20 | Stub for Paul requirements meeting; suite positioning with municipal + Bodi |
| 2026-07-22 | Working brand ClearToIssue; investor pack refresh; Paul meeting prep |
| 2026-07-24 | Paul’s extensive notes folded in; v1 sketch + discovery Q status; link to suite synthesis |