Use Cases · Risk & Review Coverage

Know your blind spots, and where you still carry risk.

A scheme carries thousands of requirements, and no team reviews every one by hand. Tektome reports what was reviewed, what was not, the confidence behind each answer and the source it traces to, updating as the design moves. The record stands for the thirty years a claim can take to arrive.

Coverage across 3,400 requirementsRevision C · issued 12 Aug

  • Reviewed and met1,610
  • Reviewed, not met618
  • Not yet reviewable476
  • Nothing has been reviewed against it696

Current practice

Two sentences a claim will separate, years after anyone said them.

"We did not look." A requirement existed, it was never captured, and so nothing was ever reviewed against it. It was not missed by a reviewer; it was never put in front of one.

"We thought we looked." The requirement was known, the package was reviewed, and the two never quite met. The report came back clean because the report only speaks about what it opened.

  • Coverage is invisible, so an unexamined requirement and a satisfied one read identically at sign-off
  • Depth depends on who had hours that week, not on what the scheme needed
  • Nothing produced along the way survives as evidence once the question is asked years later

Review report · revision C

Flat entrance door fire rating below FD 30 S on 4 sheetsFinding
Riser clearance below stated minimum, level 3Finding
Acoustic separation not evidenced, party wall type BFinding
Requirements the report does not mentionUnknown
Requirements nobody has opened yetUnknown

With Tektome

The register comes first. Coverage follows from it.

Tektome builds and maintains the full set of requirements that define quality on the scheme, from statutory duty through to company standard, and reviews the package against all of them on every issue. The output is not a list of findings. It is a position you can put in front of a client, an insurer or a regulator: for every requirement, where the scheme stands, and where it does not yet stand up.

Requirement registerNorthgate Phase 2

Rev C · 3,400 requirements

Review streams

  • All requirements3,400
  • Compliance and code1,280
  • Coordination960
  • Submittals and QA1,160

Status

  • Met1,610
  • Not met618
  • Not yet reviewable476
  • Never reviewed696

Sources

  • Regulations612
  • Client requirements538
  • Company standards486
  • Technical guidance374
  • Consultant requirements329
  • MIDP / TIDP287
  • BEP / data assurance241
  • Tender evaluations198
  • Contract requirements184
  • Meeting notes and email151
1,610 618 476 696
  • Reviewed and met
  • Reviewed, not met
  • Not yet reviewable
  • Nothing has been reviewed against it

94

Critical, resolve now

2,228

Reviewed to date

618

Open issues

94 high271 med253 low

124

No owner assigned

Ranked by severity Owner Status

Minimum height of horizontal DPC in external wall, 150mmApproved Document C, 5.5(b)Critical

?Unassigned Never reviewed

Compartment line at the plant deckApproved Document B, 8.2Critical

?Unassigned Never reviewed

Party wall acoustic rating, ≥ 45 dBClient BriefCritical

MKM. Kaur Not met

Power socket in the wheelchair storageApproved Document M Vol 1, 3.25(c)High

ATA. Toft Not yet reviewable

3,396 more requirements in this view

1 – 4 of 3,400

Minimum height of horizontal DPC in external wall, 150mmApproved Document C, 5.5(b) · critical

No record of any review against this requirement, on any revision. The DPC height is neither a finding nor a pass. Nothing has been looked at.

Assign a reviewer Never reviewed

CoverageRevision C

1,610

Met

618

Not met

476

Not yet reviewable

696

Never reviewed

PDF

Company standard, section 12

Indexed 4 Mar · 214 requirements drawn

What you get

The outputs and the evidence.

A managed requirement register

The full set of requirements the scheme has to satisfy, structured, sourced and kept current as the project moves. Risk can only be identified against something.

IncludingStatutory duty, approved documents, Employer’s Requirements, the client brief, company standards, and the commitments made in minutes and correspondence.

Requirement registerRev C

3,400 tracked

Sources

  • All3,400
  • Regulations612
  • Client reqs538
  • Company stds486
  • Technical guidance374
  • Consultant reqs329
  • MIDP / TIDP287
  • BEP / data assurance241
  • Tender evaluations198
  • Contract requirements184
  • Meeting notes and email151

Fire escape route clear widthApproved Document B Vol 1

Met

Party wall acoustic rating, ≥ 45 dBClient Brief

Not met

Horizontal DPC height, 150mmApproved Document C

Never reviewed

Power socket in the wheelchair storageApproved Document M

Not yet reviewable

3,396 more in this view

1 – 4 of 3,400

The coverage statement

For every requirement: has it been reviewed, what is the status, how much rests on it, and where a review could not be done, what is missing and why.

AnswersMet, not met, not yet reviewable, or never reviewed, with what is missing named in the cases where a review could not be completed.

One requirement, fully stated

Fire rating of flat entrance doors, ≥ FD 30 S

Status
Met
Confidence
96%
Importance
Critical

Blind spots as an output

The requirements nothing has been reviewed against, surfaced as a ranked list before sign-off rather than discovered afterwards. A rule-based tool stays silent where it holds no rule.

Ranked byWhat rests on the requirement, so the critical unexamined item is not sitting below forty trivial ones.

Nothing reviewed against · ranked

  1. 01Window opening aligned with brickwork dimensionsCritical
  2. 02Wall insulation thicknessCritical
  3. 03Flat entrance door clear widthCritical
  4. 04Built-in storage areaHigh
  5. 05Door nib dimensionHigh

One consolidated risk position

Compliance and code review, coordination and interface review, submittals and QA/QC each produce their own findings. Held separately, none of them tells you where the scheme stands. Tektome pulls them into a single position rather than siloing them per review type.

Why it mattersRisk that sits between two review types is the risk nobody owns. A consolidated view is the only place it becomes visible.

Review streams · revision C

Compliance and code review128 requirements
Coordination and interface96 requirements
Submittals and QA/QC116 requirements
One risk position3,400 · 696 unexamined

Portfolio roll-up

The same coverage view aggregated across every live scheme, so exposure is visible at organisation level rather than one project at a time. Single-project coverage is the unit; portfolio oversight is the aim.

Why it mattersAn issue that repeats across three schemes is a systemic one. Seen one project at a time, it looks like three unrelated problems.

Coverage across live schemes

Northgate Phase 2Ravensmoor · Rev C · 3 critical to review

Cornbrook YardAlderhithe · Rev F · 1 critical to review

Halden StreetMarchwell · Rev B · 7 critical to review

12 live schemes · 3 shown

Traceability and audit trail

Every requirement linked to its source, and every review, decision and sign-off recorded: who examined what, when, why it was accepted, and what was left to human judgement.

Holds forAs long as the liability lasts, not as long as the project team stays together.

Audit trail · REQ-118

  1. Requirement captured

    Company standard §12 · 4 Mar

  2. Reviewed against revision B

    Model and 6 sheets · 19 Jun

  3. Confidence too low to settle

    Referred to the building fabric consultant · 2 Aug

  4. Accepted, with a condition recorded

    A. Rowe, building fabric consultant · 8 Aug

Interrogate it, and issue it

The coverage picture is not locked inside a dashboard somebody has to be trained on. Ask a question about the scheme in plain language and get an answer with its source attached. Then ask for the output you actually have to issue, and it is built from the same live position rather than re-exported by hand.

IncludingCoverage reports, design team meeting packs, dashboards and presentations, generated from your own templates and staying linked to the current position rather than freezing on the day they were made.

Which critical requirements have nothing reviewed against them?

Ninety-four, on revision C. Sixty sit with the fire strategy, twenty with acoustics, fourteen with the facade. The oldest has been open since revision A.

Build the coverage report for Thursday's design team meeting.

Drafted from your template, with the critical blind spots listed first.
Coverage report Slide pack Live link

Coverage across every format

A requirement is rarely satisfied in one place. It is drawn on a sheet, dimensioned in a model, described in a specification, quantified in a schedule and agreed in a set of minutes. Review one format and you have reviewed one account of it. Tektome reads them together, and against each other.

Why it mattersConfine a review to the model, or to the drawing set, and everything outside it is unexamined and reads as clean. This is what separates a complete coverage picture from a partial one.

Read, and reviewed against each other

3D

  • IFC and native BIM models
  • Federated coordination models
  • Point clouds and scans

2D

  • PDF and issued drawing sets
  • DXF and CAD drawings
  • Scans, markups and handwriting

Documents

  • Specifications and reports
  • Employer's Requirements
  • Standards and approved documents

The messy sources

  • Meeting minutes and notes
  • Email and correspondence
  • Schedules and equipment lists

Value

What the work produces, what it prevents, and what that is worth.

What the workflow produces What it prevents Value
Every requirement reviewed, on every issue
Assurance that depended on whether the right person had hours that week
Programme protected, with issues found before they reach the critical path
A maintained register of every requirement the scheme has to satisfy
Requirements that were never captured, so nothing was ever reviewed against them
Rework avoided, because the gap surfaces while change is still affordable
A ranked list of what has not been reviewed
Signing a declaration without knowing which parts are unexamined
Confidence at sign-off, knowing exactly which parts remain unexamined
A linked record of who examined what, when, and what was accepted
Answering a claim with a search through an archive rather than a record
A defensible position in a dispute, answered from the record rather than an archive

What it looks like when coverage fails

  1. Specified

    Intumescent seals behind every switch and socket

  2. Missed

    Roughly two thousand of them, on one scheme

  3. Surfaced

    At handover, once the work was already closed up

  4. Paid for

    Delay, liquidated damages, and scaffolding and plant standing on site

The cost was never the seals, and nobody had decided to skip the requirement. It was assumed, but never verified.

10%

of project value lost to avoidable error, most of it traced to inadequate planning

CITB / GIRI Productivity Commission, April 2026 · measured across 25 live UK projects worth £942.5m

45%

of projects affected by design errors and late information, the single largest causal cluster

HKA CRUX, 6th annual report, October 2023 · the design share has declined since

60%

of building defects could have been prevented by better design, so the cheapest place to catch them is upstream

Chong & Low, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(3), 2006 · a nine-month condition survey of 74 buildings

Why Tektome

A tool reports on what it examined. A signature covers the whole scheme.

Rule-based tools return findings on what they examined. They hold no register of what the scheme was supposed to satisfy, so the absence of a finding carries no information. 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. This is the one output a rule-based tool cannot produce, and it is the one whoever signs actually needs.

On this A rule-based tool Tektome
What it holds Encoded rules, not the requirements this scheme committed to The register, including the requirements that live in briefs and correspondence
The unexamined Silent where no rule exists, which reads identically to a clean result Named explicitly, ranked by what rests on it
Coverage Cannot say what share of the scheme it covered A position you can hand to a client, an insurer or a regulator
Formats read Either the drawings or the text, so the half it cannot open goes unchecked 3D models, 2D drawings and documents together, and against each other
What it leaves Findings, not a record that survives the project team A defensible record, and adds to one only your firm holds

Who this is relevant to

The duty sits with the firm. The exposure lands on named professionals.

A Principal Designer duty runs for as long as the liability does, and it is answered by whoever can produce the record. That exposure is not shared evenly. It falls first on the people who carry the firm's obligations, and only then on the people who design and build the work.

Legal and governance

General Counsel · Company SecretaryManaging Partner, Practice Director or Finance Director at design practices

A process you can show

Evidence that reasonable steps were taken, held for as long as the duty lasts, rather than a recollection defended years later.

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 what the design review process is. This produces the documented answer as a by-product of the work, not as a write-up before submission.

Design leadership

Technical Director · Head of Design ManagementHead of Technical Excellence

Judgement that scales

Your best reviewer's reading applied to every package rather than the ones there were hours for, and kept in the firm after they leave.

Client and development

Development DirectorClient side

Due diligence before you submit

See what would turn a submission back while it can still be fixed, so validation is not where you find out.

In the project team

Engineer · Architect · BIM coordinator. Answers about their own project in the tools they already use, with nothing extra to maintain 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 schemes and duties your firm is carrying. Nothing to set up, no project data needed.

  • The review running end to end, on a real scheme
  • A walkthrough on a project we have prepared
  • Live Q&A with our engineering team

Book a 30-minute intro

By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your intro session. We never share your details.