# Submittal revision system map | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/submittal-revision-review-records-across-systems
Last updated: 2026-10-18

Four keys join submittal revision review across systems: the specification section, the submittal number with its revision, the drawing sheet number with its revision, and the reviewer's identity with the review date. The submittal platform holds items and revisions, the drawing repository holds sheet revisions, consultant comments often arrive by email, and field verification sits in an inspection tool. When each record carries the right key, one case can be followed from first submission to installed work.

This map belongs to the [submittal revision review guide](/guides/workflow-submittal-revision-review). It is a reference for construction document consultants who need to say, without opening a single file, whether a contractor's revision chains can be reconstructed.

## Six places a submittal history lives

On a typical commercial project the history is split across more places than the submittal platform alone:

- **Specification book.** Defines sections and the required submittals for each; sets review codes on private work.
- **Submittal platform.** Items, revisions, attachments, status codes and the approval workflow.
- **Drawing repository.** Sheets with revision history and markups, sometimes controlled by the architect.
- **Consultant email.** Reviews returned by engineers outside the platform, often as stamped PDFs.
- **Shared drive.** Product data and shop drawings saved outside the platform by habit.
- **Inspection tool.** Field verification records and photo sets.

## System, record, linking key and owner

| System | Record | Linking key it must carry | Joins to | Typical owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specification book | Section and required submittals | Spec section number | Submittal items | Design coordination head |
| Submittal platform | Submittal item | Spec section, submittal number | All its revisions | Platform administrator |
| Submittal platform | Each revision with attachments | Submittal number and revision | Previous revision, reviewer comment | Project engineer |
| Submittal platform | Reviewer comment and status | Submittal revision, sheet and revision cited, reviewer and date | Drawing revision | Design coordination head |
| Drawing repository | Sheet revision | Sheet number and revision | Comments citing it | Document control lead or architect |
| Consultant email | Returned review | Submittal number and revision in the subject | Platform revision | Project engineer |
| Inspection tool | Field verification | Submittal number or spec section | Approved revision | Superintendent |

Two links do most of the work. The reviewer comment must cite a sheet and revision, or a later reader cannot tell which version of the design was being checked. The field verification must reference the submittal or spec section, or the installed result floats free of the approval it confirms.

## A fire damper relocation, joined end to end (Illustrative)

This case is separate from the [rooftop unit substitution](/guides/submittal-revision-review-exception-examples) worked through on the related page, and every identifier is fictional. A sheet metal contractor submits fire damper product data and locations. The consultant fire protection engineer, reviewing by email, finds two dampers placed where the ducts no longer cross the rated wall, because a duct reroute on the mechanical drawings moved the penetrations.

| Step | System | Record | Keys present |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Specification book | Fire damper section and required submittals | Spec section |
| 2 | Submittal platform | Item 23-033, Rev 0, damper data and location plan | Spec section, 23-033 Rev 0, M-201 rev 1 cited |
| 3 | Consultant email | Engineer's review: two dampers off the rated wall | Subject line 23-033 Rev 0, reviewer and date |
| 4 | Drawing repository | M-201 rev 2 showing the rerouted duct penetrations | Sheet M-201, rev 2, issuer and date |
| 5 | Submittal platform | Rev 1 with revised locations, uploaded review attached | 23-033 Rev 1, M-201 rev 2 cited |
| 6 | Submittal platform | Rev 2 approved after minor label corrections | 23-033 Rev 2, M-201 rev 2 cited |
| 7 | Inspection tool | Damper drop test record with photos | 23-033, spec section |

Step 3 is the fragile one. The engineer's reasoning arrived by email; it joins the chain only because the subject line carried the item and revision and the PDF was later uploaded to Rev 1. Without that, Rev 1 would look like an unexplained change of location.

## Joins that hold and joins that break

| Join | Usually holds when | Usually breaks when |
|---|---|---|
| Spec section to item | Platform requires the section on every item | Sections renumbered between projects |
| Revision to revision | New revisions are opened, not edited in place | The original item is edited and resent |
| Comment to sheet revision | Reviewers cite sheet and revision | Comment says "per detail" with no revision |
| Attachments to revision | Files uploaded to each revision | Files kept on a shared drive |
| Consultant review to revision | Returned PDFs uploaded to the item | Reviews left in an engineer's mailbox |
| Field check to approval | Inspection references the submittal | Photos stored by date only |

None of these breaks makes a history worthless. They tell the company, and later SourceX, which projects can be followed end to end and which only in part.

## Platform behavior to confirm, not assume

Each platform stores revisions its own way, so ask the company's administrator rather than relying on a product page. Three Procore behaviors show why the map needs per-revision answers: files uploaded to one submittal revision stay with it instead of rolling forward, a sheet uploaded under an existing number joins that sheet's history as its next revision, and the log's CSV or PDF output reflects whatever filters are active and omits custom fields. A map built only from a log would miss most of the joins above. The [Procore project data guide](/systems/procore-export-project-data) covers what else that platform holds after closeout.

A partner records answers about fields and retention; never request logins, exports or sample PDFs. The completed map feeds the systems and coverage lines of the [submittal revision referral brief](/resources/submittal-revision-review-referral-brief-template), and the [decision tree for these records](/questions/who-can-license-submittal-revision-review-records) identifies who can approve a discussion. [RFI logs](/data-types/construction-rfi-log) often join the same drawing revisions, and the [field guide to document revision histories](/guides/a-partner-field-guide-to-finding-companies-with-document-revision-histories) and the [revision histories checklist](/resources/a-company-introduction-checklist-for-document-revision-histories) cover general fit.

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. Who owns architect markups and drawings, buyer interest and any offer remain unknown until SourceX reviews the opportunity.

## 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's comments cite sheet revisions and its field checks reference submittals, [register as a partner](/register), confirm it against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies), and read the [program terms](/terms) before you share the map with 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/submittals/tutorials/export-the-submittals-log
- https://support.procore.com/products/online/user-guide/project-level/drawings/tutorials/upload-drawing-revisions
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms