Plan reviewers across Manual J, REScheck, and COMcheck submittals are largely doing the same underlying job, even though the specific documents differ — checking that what's claimed on paper matches what's shown on the rest of the plans, and that the compliance approach used is applied correctly. Understanding this shared reviewer mindset, rather than treating each report type as an isolated technical exercise, helps contractors prepare documentation that anticipates what a reviewer will actually check.
Across all three report types, reviewers spend more time cross-checking figures between documents than re-deriving the underlying calculation themselves. A Manual J load that doesn't match the equipment specified elsewhere, a REScheck window U-factor that doesn't match the window schedule, or a COMcheck lighting plan that doesn't match the electrical drawings — these mismatches are what reviewers are trained to catch first, before evaluating whether the numbers themselves make sense.
Whether it's Manual S equipment selection matched to a Manual J load, a REScheck UA trade-off explained clearly, or a COMcheck space-use classification applied accurately, reviewers are confirming that whichever compliance path was chosen — prescriptive, performance, or a specific credit system — was applied according to its own rules, not just that a final number happens to pass. A performance-path result missing its supporting trade-off documentation is a common way this gets flagged, even when the final number is technically compliant.
Reviewers are also checking that related figures make sense together — a Manual J load paired with dramatically oversized equipment, or a COMcheck lighting result that seems implausibly low for the space type, tends to draw a closer look even without an explicit rule being violated. This kind of "does this look right" scrutiny is less about a specific numeric threshold and more about pattern recognition built from reviewing many similar submittals.
Reviewers expect the level of supporting detail to match the complexity of the compliance path chosen — a straightforward prescriptive submittal can be relatively brief, while a performance-path or trade-off submittal needs enough supporting detail for the reviewer to verify the underlying logic themselves rather than take the final result on faith.
Beyond the shared cross-checking approach, each jurisdiction has its own specific expectations — required forms, preferred formatting, or local amendments that a reviewer is specifically watching for. A submittal that satisfies the general national standard for a given report type can still get flagged for missing something the specific local reviewer expects.
Do plan reviewers re-run the underlying calculations themselves?
Generally not in full — most review focuses on cross-checking submitted figures against the rest of the plans and confirming the compliance path was applied correctly, rather than independently re-deriving every number from scratch.
What's the single most common thing that triggers a reviewer question across all three report types?
A mismatch between the compliance report's inputs and what's shown elsewhere in the permit package — this is consistently more common than an actual calculation error.
Does more documentation always mean a faster review?
Not necessarily — documentation needs to be relevant and clearly presented for the compliance path used. Excessive or poorly organized documentation can make it harder for a reviewer to quickly find the figures they need, which can slow things down rather than speed them up.
Psychro.Pro prepares Manual J, REScheck, and COMcheck reports built around what reviewers actually check — consistent figures, complete documentation for the compliance path used, and jurisdiction-specific formatting.Learn more.
