# Submittal revision exception, worked example | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/submittal-revision-review-exception-examples
Last updated: 2026-10-18

The submittal records that explain an exception are the revision sequence of one item read together with the drawing revisions its comments cite: each submission version with its attachments, the reviewer's comment, the status code, the drawing change that resolved the conflict, and the field check that confirmed it. In the case below, a discontinued rooftop unit forced a substitute that clashed with an approved curb detail, and six records show what went wrong, who decided, and how the fix was verified.

This walkthrough is part of the [submittal revision review guide](/guides/workflow-submittal-revision-review), which covers what to inventory before a document system transition. This page does one thing: follow a single hard case from problem to checked result, so a construction document consultant knows what a valuable revision chain looks like.

## What went wrong

Illustrative. The contractor, project and references are fictional.

A 260-person mechanical contractor is installing rooftop units on a three-story medical office building. In week 6 it submits product data for unit model A. The engineer of record approves it as noted, asking the contractor to confirm curb height against detail 4 on sheet M-501.

In week 19, the supplier writes that model A is discontinued. The contractor's project engineer selects model B, which has the same capacity but a longer footprint. The curb that detail 4 describes, already approved and on order, will not fit it.

Nothing here is anyone's fault. A product disappeared mid-project, and the approved design no longer matched what could be bought. Handling that well requires judgment from several parties, which is why the record of it is worth more than a clean approval.

## The decisions, in the order they were made

**The project engineer** decides to resubmit rather than quietly swap units. That choice creates Rev 1 of the same submittal item, with the supplier's discontinuation letter attached. In Procore, for example, a new revision inherits the item's general information and increments the revision number, but attachments stay with the revision they were uploaded to, so the letter lives only on Rev 1.

**The reviewer** compares model B with the current drawings and finds the conflict. The comment names it precisely: footprint conflicts with the approved curb detail on M-501 revision 2. Status: revise and resubmit. On a federal project, UFGS 01 33 00 would decide who that reviewer is; submittals classified for Government approval go to the government reviewer, while the rest fall under the contractor's quality control. Here the item went to the engineer of record.

**The design team** decides the fix belongs in the drawings, not in field improvisation. In week 21 it issues detail 4A, a curb adapter, as M-501 revision 3. In a drawing tool that keeps revision history by sheet number, that upload becomes a new revision of the existing sheet rather than a separate file.

**The project engineer** submits Rev 2 in week 22: model B with a shop drawing for the adapter curb, citing M-501 revision 3, detail 4A. The reviewer approves it.

**The superintendent and inspector** check the installed unit in week 30. The adapter matches detail 4A. The item is closed.

## The record trail behind each decision

| Week | Decision | Decided by | Record created | Where it lives |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Approve model A with a curb-height note | Engineer of record | Rev 0, approved as noted | Submittal item, original attachments |
| 19 | Resubmit a substitute instead of swapping silently | Project engineer | Rev 1 with supplier letter | New revision of the same item |
| 19 | Reject: footprint conflicts with the approved detail | Reviewer | Comment citing M-501 rev 2; revise and resubmit | Rev 1 review |
| 21 | Fix the conflict in the design | Design team | Detail 4A issued on M-501 rev 3 | Drawing revision history |
| 22 | Approve the substitute with an adapter curb | Reviewer | Rev 2 stamped approved, citing rev 3 detail 4A | Submittal item, stamped PDF |
| 30 | Confirm the installed work matches | Superintendent and inspector | Inspection record and photo set | Inspection tool |

## What makes the chain usable, and what would break it

Three properties make this a usable record rather than a folder of PDFs. The problem is explicit: a supplier letter states the model was discontinued. The authorized action is traceable to a named reviewer and a specific drawing revision. The result was checked in the field.

Each property depends on one link that is easy to lose:

- **Lose the drawing revision**, and the Rev 1 comment points at a detail that has since changed, while the Rev 2 approval looks unexplained. Markups on an old sheet revision are a particular risk; in Procore, markups added to an old revision after a newer one is uploaded do not carry forward.
- **Edit Rev 0 instead of opening Rev 1**, and the discontinued model vanishes from the history. Procore itself recommends creating a revision rather than sending the item back a step, because the latter loses history.
- **Keep the inspection photos in a third system with no submittal reference**, and nobody can show the fix held.

This problem, action and result pattern is what makes exception histories interesting for AI training and evaluation, and it is the same test applied to shipments in the guide to [logistics exceptions and their documented resolutions](/guides/how-to-identify-logistics-exceptions-and-their-documented-resolutions). SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout. Drawings and markups may belong to the design firm rather than the contractor, as [who owns construction drawings](/questions/who-owns-construction-drawings-copyright) explains, so licensability is decided only after rights review.

## Spotting similar cases at a client

Listen for these phrases in an ordinary conversation with the design coordination head. None requires seeing a project file.

- "We had a lot of substitutions after the supplier shortages." Substitutions generate multi-revision items.
- "The designer issued an adapter detail." A drawing change resolved a submittal conflict, so the two systems must be joined.
- "We always open a new revision." Good practice for preserving history.
- "Our reviewers cite the sheet and revision in every comment." The single most valuable habit for later reconstruction.
- "Field verification is logged against the submittal." Rare, and worth noting.

If several apply, ask how many closed projects the company still holds, roughly how many revisions per submittal, and in which systems. The [field map across submittal and drawing systems](/guides/submittal-revision-review-records-across-systems) shows which keys to ask about, the [document revision histories checklist](/resources/a-company-introduction-checklist-for-document-revision-histories) covers general fit, and [RFI logs](/data-types/construction-rfi-log) are a closely related record type. To find the person who can approve a discussion, use the [decision tree for these records](/questions/who-can-license-submittal-revision-review-records).

The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English.

## Next step

> **Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000.** Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.

If a contractor can follow substitutions like this from first submission to field check, [register as a partner](/register), check it against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies), and read the [program terms](/terms) before you introduce the design coordination head.

## Sources

- https://support.procore.com/products/online/user-guide/project-level/submittals/tutorials/create-a-submittal-revision
- https://support.procore.com/products/online/user-guide/project-level/drawings/tutorials/upload-drawing-revisions
- https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2001%2033%2000.pdf
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms