Spec versus submittal. Every deviation flagged.
The Submittal Reviewer is the Trueleveler engine that compares the vendor's submittal text against the controlling spec section and produces a numbered findings list. Each finding has a severity tag (Critical / Major / Minor / Info), a side-by-side quote pair (spec text vs submittal text), a category (substitution, omitted requirement, conflicting standard, etc.), and a recommended action. Composes an overall review_result — Approved, Approved as Noted, Revise and Resubmit, or Rejected — and persists the findings onto submittal_revisions so the tracker shows the decision history.
Try it now
Submittal Reviewer runs on a spec section and a submittal and needs a free account (no card). It has no sample data yet, and the no-signup demo only levels bids.
The deviations that show up at install, not review.
Submittals fail in predictable ways. A sub proposes a manufacturer not on the approved-equal list. The data sheet shows a smaller motor than the spec'd horsepower. A finish color is two shades off from the spec'd RAL number. Most of these slip past reviewers because a single sub may submit 40 pages and the reviewer has 30 other submittals waiting. Submittal Reviewer reads the whole package, compares it line-by-line to the controlling spec, and produces the numbered list of every deviation.
Submitted motor 5HP. Spec calls for 7.5HP minimum.
Hard violation of a numeric spec requirement. The sub must revise the submittal or formally request a substitution per spec 01 25 00. Engine output: severity Critical, recommended action "Revise and Resubmit."
Manufacturer not on approved-equal list
Sub proposes Carrier 50TC where spec basis-of-design is Trane and approved equals are York / Daikin. Substitution may be acceptable on equipment match, but the request requires architect approval per spec 01 25 00. Engine output: severity Major, recommended action "Approve as Noted — submit substitution form 1.5."
Light fixture submitted 14.8W. Spec calls for 15W ±5%.
Inside the spec'd tolerance band but worth flagging for the PM to confirm photometric performance still meets the LDRA targets. Engine output: severity Minor, recommended action "Approve as Noted — verify photometric report."
Cut sheet lacks the warranty term
Manufacturer's data sheet doesn't state warranty period. Spec 23 09 00 requires 5-year compressor warranty. Not a violation — possibly an omission on the sub's part. Engine output: severity Info, recommended action "Approve as Noted — submittal must include warranty letter."
Every submittal. Before it hits the architect's desk.
The reviewer is meant to run before the formal submittal review — it pre-flights the package, surfaces the deviations the sub should fix, and lets the GC kick obvious problems back to the sub instead of consuming the architect's review window.
- Every new submittal — sub uploads the package, engine runs, findings ready in under 30 seconds. GC PM sees the issues before the architect ever sees the document.
- Every resubmittal — revised package comes in, engine compares against the prior revision's findings. "Resolved" items get marked; new findings get a fresh number. The architect sees only the delta.
- Owner-side QA — owner-rep PMs use the same engine to verify the GC's submittal review actually caught the deviations the spec requires.
- Pre-procurement gate — pair with procurement. No PO releases until the linked submittal has run through the reviewer and resolved any Critical findings.
Spec section. Submittal text. The rest is automatic.
v1 is text-only — pasted text or PDF extract. v2 (post-PDF sidecar) adds drawing-bbox pin overlays on shop drawings.
Spec section text
The controlling spec section (CSI MasterFormat). PDF extracted to text or pasted directly. Multi-section comparison is supported — e.g., 23 09 00 + 23 09 23.3 for a controls submittal.
Submittal text
Shop drawing notes, product data, manufacturer cut sheets, sample descriptions. PDF text extract or paste. The engine handles equipment schedules and tabular data in the cut sheets.
Project context
Approved-equal lists from prior submittals on this project, the substitution-request log, contract general conditions, prior architect responses. The engine uses these to predict the likely approval result and calibrate severity.
Numbered findings. Side-by-side quotes. One recommendation.
Sample review for a packaged rooftop unit submittal against spec 23 73 13:
One of four standard stamps composed by the engine based on the finding mix. Approved = no findings above Minor. Approved as Noted = no Critical, ≤3 Major needing acknowledgment. Revise and Resubmit = ≥1 Critical or >3 Major. Rejected = irreconcilable substitution or wholesale spec violation. The PM stamps the actual decision — the engine just suggests the starting point with the math behind it.
One review. Three downstream effects.
Submittal Reviewer is a hub in the field-phase chain. The findings drive the submittal tracker, the RFI drafter, and the change-order engine all at once.
- Submittal Tracker — the review_result flows directly into the tracker entry. Approve / Approve as Noted / Revise / Reject is the audit trail. The carries-data badge fires on this chain.
- RFI Drafter — if a deviation needs architect clarification (e.g., substitution acceptability), one click drafts the RFI with the side-by-side quotes pre-filled.
- CO Review — if the substitution lands as a cost add (or credit), the CO Review engine inherits the substitution narrative as the change-order justification.
- Procurement — the PO release gate. Procurement won't open a PO on an item with a linked submittal that has open Critical findings; the reviewer is the gating engine.
Things everyone asks first.
What submittal formats are supported?
v1 is text-based. Native PDFs with extractable text parse cleanly. Scanned PDFs do not — there is no OCR on this path, so a scan comes through empty and the run is refused rather than answered from nothing. Equipment schedules and tabular cut sheets are recognized as tables. Pasted text from email or a spec viewer works the same way. v2 (shipping when the PDF sidecar lands) adds drawing-bbox pin overlays that point to the exact spot on a shop drawing where a finding lives.
Does it know the architect's substitution preferences?
It learns. The first time a substitution request goes through on a project, the engine doesn't know whether this architect tends to approve Daikin-for-Trane. After 4–6 closed substitution requests, the empirical approval rate per manufacturer pair becomes part of the recommendation. Pre-empirical, severity defaults to Major for any off-list manufacturer.
What if the spec is ambiguous about a requirement?
Ambiguity is itself a finding. If the spec is silent on a parameter the submittal addresses (e.g., refrigerant type isn't specified, sub picks R-32), the engine surfaces this as an Info finding noting the spec gap. The PM decides whether to accept the sub's choice or RFI the architect for clarification — either way, the gap is captured in the audit trail.
How does it handle a 200-page submittal with 4 spec sections?
The full package parses against each controlling spec section. Each section's findings get their own numbered series (F1–F5 for spec 23 09 00, then F1–F3 for 23 09 23.3, etc.). The overall review_result is composed from the worst severity across all sections. Typical 200-page submittal processes in under 60 seconds.
Can subcontractors run the same review pre-submission?
Yes — the engine works the same for subs reviewing their own submittal before sending to the GC. Pro plan covers both roles. Subs typically use it to catch their own deviations before formal submission, which reduces rejected resubmittals.
Does it generate the notes-to-subcontractor text?
Yes. For every Critical or Major finding, the engine drafts a one-sentence note in PM voice: "Provide cooling capacity of 30 tons nominal at 95/78 design conditions per spec 23 73 13 §2.3.A." The PM edits or approves; the notes auto-attach to the submittal's return stamp. The sub gets a single document with every issue listed and citable.
Drop a submittal. See every deviation in 30 seconds.
Bring one real submittal and the spec section it's against to a 15-minute call. We'll run the review on screen, walk the findings, and you keep the output with the recommended notes to sub.
Try Free for 14 Days →