Use Cases · Compliance & Code Review
Non-compliance found early, and evidenced when it is questioned.
Requirements are drawn from the codes, standards and client documents that govern the scheme, then reviewed against every drawing, model and specification on each issue. Non-compliance surfaces while it is still cheap to fix, and every clause carries the evidence a claim will ask for years later.
- Building code compliance
- Code review
- Planning and permit review
- International code review
Compliance position · rev C214 tracked
Compliant, evidence linkedSettled against the current issue
163
Not compliant, raisedOpen findings with a named owner
18
Referred to a personEvidence does not settle it alone
21
Waiting on informationBlocked until the artefact arrives
12
Current practice
Compliance is confirmed at the end, which is where it costs the most.
Codes are read once, interpreted by whoever is available, and applied to a sample of the package. Confirmation comes at the stage gate, at submission, or on site, by which point the design is committed and the rework begins: around 80% of it handled manually, consuming roughly 30% of project time. Later, when an approver or a claimant asks what was reviewed against which clause, the answer is reconstructed from marked-up PDFs and an email thread.
- Requirements live in documents, not in anything that tracks their status
- Review happens at stage boundaries, so drift between issues goes unseen
- The evidence is assembled after the fact, for the submission, rather than produced by the work
Cost of correcting one non-compliance, by when it surfaces
With Tektome
A live status against every clause, not a report at the end.
Compliance requirements are extracted from the approved documents, standards and client papers that apply, structured, and kept current as those sources change. Each one carries its own status, and each status carries the artefact it was settled against and the date it was last reviewed. The result is a position you can put in front of an approver, an insurer or a claimant.
Generated from your own template, current with revision C
4 of 5 readyWhat would turn this backBefore you submit
Flat entrance doors (onto a common escape route), ≥ FD 30 SApproved Document B
The model and specification disagree on flat entrance doors fire rating. Referred rather than settled, with the disagreement stated.
Gateway 2 submission
Rebuilt on every issue
What you get
The outputs, and the evidence behind each one.
Requirements extracted and kept current
Compliance requirements are pulled out of the documents that govern the scheme, structured into a tracked set, and updated as those documents are revised. When a clause moves, the requirements that depend on it move with it.
IncludingApproved documents and national codes, British and European standards, local planning conditions, Employer's Requirements, and the client's own technical standards.
Extracted · 214 compliance requirements
+ 209 more, each linked to its clause
Document and information tracking
Linked tables of what is needed, what has been received and what has been reviewed, in one place rather than three spreadsheets. Status updates from meeting minutes and the latest issue instead of being re-keyed by hand.
Why it mattersA requirement cannot be reviewed against information that has not arrived. Tracking the two together shows you which gaps are blocking which clauses.
Information required for compliance
Automated compliance review across every format
Drawings, models, specifications, schedules and reports are all read and reviewed against the requirements, using workflows built the way your firm reviews rather than a fixed set someone else encoded.
Why it mattersA clause is usually satisfied across several artefacts at once. Reviewing one of them settles one account of it.
Read, and reviewed against each other
3D
- IFC and native BIM models
- Federated coordination models
2D
- PDF and issued drawing sets
- DXF and CAD drawings
Documents
- Specifications and reports
- Approved documents and standards
Calculations
- U-value, structural, MEP
- Inputs reviewed, not just results
The compliance dashboard
One view of where the scheme stands: what has been reviewed against each requirement, what is settled, what is not, and what has been referred to a person because the evidence does not settle it on its own.
Why it mattersThe referred items are the honest part. A number that hides them is worth less than a smaller number that does not.
Compliance position · revision C
Reports generated from the record
Compliance reports and presentations built from the tracked requirements and their review results, in your own templates. They are drawn from the live position, so they are current when you send them, not a snapshot that aged the day it was made.
IncludingApproval submissions, design team meeting packs, client compliance reports and internal QA summaries.
Generated from the current position
The thread from clause to issued report
Requirement confirmed, artefact reviewed, finding raised, decision recorded, report issued. Every step linked, so the compliance record is a by-product of doing the work rather than something written up for the submission.
Why it mattersEvidence for approval, not assertion. When it is questioned, the thread is the answer.
Audit thread
Requirement confirmed from the clause
Approved Document B Vol 1, Table 3.1 · 4 MarReviewed against revision B
Model and 14 sheets · 19 JunFinding raised, travel distance 21.4m
Level 4 east corridor · 21 JunResolved at revision C, second stair added
Accepted by the fire engineer · 12 AugIssued in the compliance report
Submission pack, section 3 · 14 Aug
Value
What the work produces, what it prevents, and what that is worth.
Compliance requirements tracked against their clause
What it preventsA clause that moved, or was read once and never revisited
ValueRework avoided, because the code position stays current as clauses move
Review that runs on every issue rather than at the gate
What it preventsNon-conformance discovered once the design is committed
ValueProgramme protected, with non-conformance caught before the design commits
Information tracked alongside the requirements it settles
What it preventsSubmitting with the gaps still in it
ValueA submission that lands, with the information gaps closed before you send it
A linked thread from clause to issued report
What it preventsReconstructing the evidence months after the decision
ValueA defensible position at renewal and in dispute, answered from the record
c.40%
of Gateway 2 applications rejected at initial validation, with around 35% turned back for missing information rather than bad design
Building Safety Regulator, reported statements
22 weeks
median Gateway 2 approval against a 12 week statutory target, with many complex cases past 40 weeks
Building Safety Regulator, May to Jul 2026 data, published 5 Aug 2026
£10,000
per building per week cost of delay, so a single 12 week resubmission is worth around £120,000
BSR Impact Assessment, cited by Centre for Cities · the size of the exposure, not a Tektome result
Why Tektome
A signature covers the whole scheme, not the part a tool examined.
Rule-based tools return findings against code, and they do it well. What they do not hold is a managed register of the requirements this scheme has to satisfy, a status per requirement, or the thread from that requirement to the report you issued. Insurer proposal forms now ask by name about milestone reviews and design gateways, and a reasonable-steps defence is only as good as the record behind it. That record is what an approver, an insurer or a claimant is actually asking for.
A rule-based tool
Returns findings against encoded code.
- Tests the slice somebody encoded, not the client's own standards
- Holds no status per requirement, so there is no position to report
- Runs against the model, and stops where the specification begins
- Cannot show the thread from clause to issued report
Tektome
Holds the register, and the evidence behind it.
- Reviews against published code and the client's own requirements together
- Carries a live status per requirement, current with the latest issue
- Reads drawings, models, specifications and calculations as one package
- Links clause to review to decision to the report that was issued
Who this is relevant to
The clause is the same. The consequence of missing it is not.
A non-compliance found at validation or on site is the same clause it was at concept, priced differently. Who pays depends on the duty they hold, not on whoever drew or built it.
Legal and governance
General Counsel · Company SecretaryManaging Partner, Practice Director or Finance Director at design practices
A compliance position you can show
Every clause with its status and the artefact it was settled against, held for as long as the duty lasts rather than reconstructed from an email thread.
Insurance and risk
Whoever owns the PI programmeThe title varies by firm; the renewal obligation does not
The evidence renewal asks for
Proposal forms ask by name about milestone reviews and design gateways. This produces that evidence as a by-product of the work.
Design leadership
Technical Director · Head of Design ManagementHead of Technical Excellence
The same reading, every package
Code review applied consistently on each issue, regardless of who ran it or how much time they had that week.
Client and development
Development DirectorClient side
Survive validation first time
See what would turn a submission back while it can still be fixed. No promise about approval times, only about knowing before you submit.
In the project team
Architect · Engineer · BIM coordinator. Ask which clauses a change affects and get an answer with the citation attached, without maintaining a fourth system for someone else’s audit trail.
Next step
Interested to learn more?
A 30-minute session: a deeper look at the platform, and a conversation about the codes and client standards your firm is signing against. Nothing to set up, no project data needed.
- A clause followed from the code to the issued report
- A walkthrough on a project we have prepared
- Live Q&A with our engineering team
Book a 30-minute intro
Your request is in.
We'll be in touch shortly to find a time that works.