This episode explores a recurring request from design teams: generating submittal, QA, and other specification-based reports. The discussion questions the actual purpose of these reports and whether they provide meaningful value. While potential uses include internal review of required submittals or cross-checking contractor submissions, the conversation highlights significant challenges. Inconsistent formatting across consultant specifications, variations in CSI section organization, and reliance on automation all make accurate report generation difficult. The team also considers whether AI could extract submittal data, but notes similar reliability concerns. Ultimately, the episode raises a larger issue: relying on reports as shortcuts may discourage teams from actually reading the specifications. The conversation ends with an open challenge to the industry to reconsider why these reports are requested and whether they truly improve project outcomes
If we're relying on a simple report to edit the specification… what is the motivation for anybody to actually read the spec?
Learning Points
Industry insight:
Requests for submittal and QA reports are common, but the intended purpose and value of these reports are often unclear.
Practice takeaway:
Before generating specification-based reports, teams should define how the information will be used and whether it improves coordination or decision-making.
Process lesson:
Automated report generation depends on consistent formatting across specifications, which is difficult to achieve when multiple consultants contribute content.
Risk or opportunity:
Using reports as checklists outside the specifications may discourage thorough review of the actual project requirements and lead to missed coordination issues.
People & culture:
Questioning long-standing practices, such as requesting submittal reports, encourages more thoughtful workflows and better engagement with the specifications.
Elias Saltz, Steve Gantner, David Stutzman
