{"id":495,"date":"2026-06-05T13:47:19","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T18:47:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/flikt.ai\/?p=495"},"modified":"2026-09-13T13:53:25","modified_gmt":"2026-09-13T18:53:25","slug":"conflictos-por-cada-100-hojas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/flikt.ai\/es\/conflicts-per-100-sheets\/","title":{"rendered":"Catalogamos 364 conflictos de coordinaci\u00f3n en 14 juegos de planos reales. Aqu\u00ed es donde se esconden."},"content":{"rendered":"

Original data: how many cross-discipline conflicts are in a typical construction document set \u2014 and which discipline pairs generate the most.<\/em><\/p>\n

A note on this data, added August 2026: these figures come from a study of fourteen plan sets catalogued in June 2026. We re-ran the same analysis in August 2026 against a larger catalogue – nineteen plan sets and 523 adjudicated conflicts – and the ranking held. Architectural and Electrical remained the most conflict-prone interface, and architectural drawings remained involved in about half of everything found. Read the per-pair percentages below as the June study’s figures rather than fixed industry rates, and read the overall per-100-sheets number as a floor, since a catalogue only ever contains what someone found.<\/em><\/p>\n

The short answer<\/h2>\n

We took 14 real, professionally drawn construction plan sets<\/strong> \u2014 4,968 drawing sheets<\/strong> in total, across multifamily, single-family, retail, restaurant, and institutional projects \u2014 and catalogued every coordination conflict in them that a general contractor, developer, or design professional confirmed was real.<\/p>\n

The result: 364 adjudicated coordination conflicts, or about 7 per 100 drawing sheets.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The more useful finding is where<\/em> they cluster. The single most conflict-prone interface is Architectural \u2194 Electrical<\/strong> (about 1 in 10 of all conflicts), and Architectural drawings are involved in about half of all conflicts<\/strong> \u2014 the architectural set is the coordination hub that every other discipline has to reconcile against.<\/p>\n

As far as we know, no one else publishes this breakdown from real adjudicated plan-set data. Here it is.<\/p>\n

Conflicts per 100 sheets: about 7<\/h2>\n

Across the portfolio, the sheet-weighted rate is 7.3 coordination conflicts per 100 drawing sheets<\/strong> \u2014 roughly one confirmed conflict every ~14 sheets.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A few things worth saying plainly about that number, because honest benchmarking matters:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • The rate varies enormously with set size and scope, not building quality.<\/strong> A tight 40-sheet tenant renovation concentrates its conflicts; a 900-sheet multi-building apartment complex dilutes them across hundreds of sheets. That’s why we report the sheet-weighted<\/em> portfolio rate rather than a project average \u2014 averaging the projects would over-weight the small sets and produce a misleadingly high number.<\/li>\n
  • “Conflict” here means an adjudicated coordination issue<\/strong> \u2014 a real clash, omission, or cross-sheet contradiction that a professional reviewing the set confirmed, not a raw software guess. Likely false positives were removed before counting.<\/li>\n
  • These are the conflicts that live in the documents<\/strong>, whether or not anyone caught them before construction. That’s the point of the benchmark: it’s a census of what’s actually in a typical set.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    So: a mid-size set will carry dozens of coordination conflicts. The question every team should ask is not whether<\/em> they exist, but where<\/em> \u2014 and that’s where the data gets actionable.<\/p>\n

    Where conflicts hide: the discipline-pair breakdown<\/h2>\n

    Each conflict involves one or two disciplines. When you sort all 364 by which disciplines are in tension, a clear hierarchy emerges. These are the most conflict-prone discipline pairs<\/strong>, as a share of all conflicts:<\/p>\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Rank<\/th>\nDiscipline pair<\/th>\nShare of all conflicts<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    1<\/td>\nArchitectural \u00d7 Electrical<\/td>\n10.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    2<\/td>\nArchitectural \u00d7 Mechanical<\/td>\n8.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3<\/td>\nMechanical \u00d7 Structural<\/td>\n5.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    4<\/td>\nArchitectural \u00d7 Structural<\/td>\n5.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    5 (tie)<\/td>\nElectrical \u00d7 Mechanical<\/td>\n4.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    5 (tie)<\/td>\nArchitectural \u00d7 Plumbing<\/td>\n4.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    7<\/td>\nArchitectural \u00d7 Interior Design<\/td>\n3.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    8 (tie)<\/td>\nMechanical \u00d7 Plumbing<\/td>\n3.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    8 (tie)<\/td>\nArchitectural \u00d7 Civil<\/td>\n3.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    10<\/td>\nElectrical \u00d7 Plumbing<\/td>\n3.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

    (A long tail of site, fire-protection, and landscape pairs makes up the remainder.)<\/p>\n

    Overall, 77% of conflicts are cross-discipline<\/strong> (two trades in tension) and 23% are within a single discipline<\/strong> \u2014 one sheet contradicting another sheet of the same trade. That second category surprises people: nearly a quarter of coordination problems are a discipline disagreeing with itself<\/em> across its own sheet set.<\/p>\n

    The pattern that matters: Architectural is the hub<\/h2>\n

    Look at that table again. Architectural is in the #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, and #9 pairs. Across the whole dataset, the architectural set is involved in about half of every conflict<\/strong> \u2014 more than any other discipline by a wide margin.<\/p>\n

    That’s not because architects make more mistakes. It’s structural: every other discipline lays its scope out against the architectural background.<\/strong> Electrical fixtures, mechanical equipment, plumbing risers, structural members, interior finishes \u2014 they all reference the architectural plan, and any drift between them and the architecture shows up as a conflict. The architectural set is where coordination either holds together or falls apart.<\/p>\n

    The practical implication: if you have limited review time, the highest-yield place to spend it is the seams between the architectural set and everything else<\/strong> \u2014 starting with electrical and mechanical.<\/p>\n

    MEP vs. everything \u2014 and why Structural fights Mechanical, not Electrical<\/h2>\n

    The bulk of the distribution is the classic MEP coordination<\/strong> problem: mechanical, electrical, and plumbing in tension with each other, with the architecture, and with the structure. If you’ve ever sat in a coordination meeting, none of this will shock you \u2014 but the relative weights are useful.<\/p>\n

    One detail stands out. Mechanical \u00d7 Structural conflicts (5.8%) outnumber Electrical \u00d7 Structural conflicts by roughly 10 to 1.<\/strong> The reason is physical: ductwork and beams fight for the same plenum space above the ceiling, while electrical conduit is flexible enough to route around structure. The duct-vs-beam clash is the canonical coordination conflict, and it showed up in nearly every multifamily and single-family set we looked at.<\/p>\n

    Why these conflicts survive to the field<\/h2>\n

    The reason coordination conflicts make it into construction is structural, not careless: every individual sheet can be correct while the set<\/em> is wrong.<\/strong> The architectural plan is right. The structural plan is right. The mechanical plan is right. The conflict only exists between<\/em> them \u2014 and no single discipline owns the space where two trades overlap.<\/p>\n

    Traditional plan review is done discipline-by-discipline. So the cross-discipline conflicts \u2014 which our data says are 77% of the total<\/strong> \u2014 are exactly the ones that survive a conventional review and turn into RFIs, change orders, and rework in the field.<\/p>\n

    How this connects to Flikt.AI<\/h2>\n

    This dataset is the ground truth behind Flikt.AI<\/a>. Flikt.AI is AI-powered plan review<\/a> that cross-references complete 2D PDF plan sets across 16 disciplines \u2014 architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, fire alarm, low-voltage, telecom, civil, landscape, interior design, food service, signage, zoning, and specifications \u2014 and flags exactly the cross-discipline conflicts this benchmark is made of, before construction begins.<\/strong> No BIM model required.<\/p>\n

    The 364 conflicts above came from real plan sets we’ve run. On one South Florida commercial retail project, every conflict flagged was confirmed real by the general contractor<\/a> \u2014 zero false positives. On a residential project, the system caught an HVAC-vs-structure clash the field team missed<\/a>, one that cost $10,000+ and two weeks of schedule once it reached the field.<\/p>\n

    If your sets look like the ones in this benchmark \u2014 and statistically, they do \u2014 there are dozens of these conflicts in your next plan set right now. The cheapest one is the one you find on paper.<\/p>\n

    The figures on this page come from Flikt’s own adjudicated review data. Industry figures quoted elsewhere on this site are traced to their primary documents in our construction rework statistics register<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    FAQ<\/h2>\n

    How many coordination conflicts are in a typical construction plan set?<\/h3>\n

    In our analysis of 14 real plan sets (4,968 drawing sheets), about 7 confirmed coordination conflicts per 100 sheets<\/strong> \u2014 roughly one every 14 sheets. A mid-size set therefore carries dozens of conflicts. The rate varies with set size and scope.<\/p>\n

    Which disciplines have the most coordination conflicts?<\/h3>\n

    Architectural \u00d7 Electrical<\/strong> is the most conflict-prone interface (~10% of all conflicts), followed by Architectural \u00d7 Mechanical (~8%) and Mechanical \u00d7 Structural (~6%). Architectural drawings are involved in about half<\/strong> of all conflicts \u2014 the coordination hub.<\/p>\n

    Are most conflicts between disciplines or within one discipline?<\/h3>\n

    About 77% are cross-discipline<\/strong> (two trades in tension) and 23% are within a single discipline<\/strong> (one sheet contradicting another of the same trade).<\/p>\n

    Why do mechanical and structural conflict so often?<\/h3>\n

    Ductwork and structural beams compete for the same plenum space above the ceiling. Mechanical \u00d7 Structural conflicts outnumber Electrical \u00d7 Structural by roughly 10 to 1 because conduit routes around structure more easily than ducts do.<\/p>\n

    Why do coordination conflicts make it into construction?<\/h3>\n

    Because each individual sheet can be correct while the combined set conflicts. Discipline-by-discipline review doesn’t examine the seams between<\/em> disciplines, where 77% of conflicts live.<\/p>\n

    What counts as a “conflict” in this dataset?<\/h3>\n

    An adjudicated coordination issue \u2014 a clash, omission, or cross-sheet contradiction confirmed as real by a general contractor, developer, or design professional. Likely false positives were excluded before counting.<\/p>\n

    Methodology<\/h2>\n

    The dataset is 14 real construction plan sets<\/strong> Flikt.AI has analyzed and for which a human-adjudicated ground-truth conflict catalog exists: 9 multifamily (including a high-rise, an adaptive-reuse loft conversion, a clubhouse, and a lobby renovation), 1 single-family, 2 retail\/recreation, 1 restaurant tenant improvement, and 1 institutional project. 364 conflicts<\/strong> survived adjudication as real; likely false positives were reviewed out before counting. Sheet counts are drawing-sheet pages from a per-project plan-set audit (specs, calculations, surveys, and administrative pages excluded). Each conflict is attributed to one or two disciplines (an unordered pair); shares are of all 364. We report the sheet-weighted<\/strong> portfolio rate rather than a project average, because the per-project rate is dominated by set-size effects and is not a meaningful cross-project quality comparison. Numbers are presented as benchmarks and rounded shares, not project-specific estimates. Questions about the methodology are welcome.<\/p>\n

    Rates from other people’s sets are a starting point, not an answer. Run the review against a set you have already built<\/a> and compare what comes back with the RFIs that project actually generated.<\/p>\n