Coordinate drawings, specification notes and the material reference.
Illustrative specification workspace. Blank records and samples do not establish product approval or acceptance criteria.Request product-specific compatibility documentation and send design questions to the responsible professional.
Identify every connected component
Describe the hardwood profile, fastening system, relevant supporting material and visible finish expectations together. A hidden fastening name does not establish that it fits every groove or thickness. Request the exact fastener or clip designation and the product instructions that address the proposed application. Note first and last boards, ends, corners and transitions as separate details when they use different methods. Keep the drawing references with the product data so the review can follow the proposed assembly without searching through unrelated documents.
Ask targeted coordination questions
The useful question is whether the submitted documentation addresses this combination of components and exposure. Ask the supplier or manufacturer to identify limitations and missing information. Record any field machining, predrilling, special tools or accessories required by the applicable instructions. Do not create universal fastener spacing, embedment, edge distances or capacities from a generic workflow guide. Structural connection design and code compliance need the responsible design review. If two instructions conflict, capture both references and request a coordinated response before the affected work proceeds.
Preserve installation evidence
The installer should receive the selected instruction revision and the disposition of interface questions before ordering accessories. Record substitutions of fasteners or clips explicitly, even when the main board product remains the same. In the field record, identify deviations and the authority that addressed them. Photographs may help document concealed conditions if the project calls for them, but they do not replace required inspection. At closeout, retain the component identities and final detail references so repairs can locate compatible parts and understand how the original assembly was intended to work.
Make the submittal describe one identifiable connection
A board data sheet in one folder and a clip brochure in another do not describe a reviewed connection. The specification should tell the submitting party how to join those records: identify the application, exact board/profile, attachment components, supporting material and applicable instruction revision in one interface schedule. Use the detail number to connect that schedule to the drawing.
Keep the level of certainty visible. “Profile drawing requested” is a different state from “drawing received”, and both differ from a documented review disposition. A complete-looking drawing should not erase an unanswered question. Name the missing evidence and the party responsible for providing or reviewing it under the project’s agreed process.
An interface schedule that exposes missing information
Scroll sideways to read all columns. Keyboard: focus the table and use the arrow keys.
| Schedule field | What the submission should identify | Question left open if omitted |
|---|---|---|
| Application and location | Detail reference, project zone and board role, including non-field conditions. | Which installation does this proposal cover? |
| Supplied board | Product identity and current profile drawing, with the dimension basis stated. | Does the documented interface describe the material being supplied? |
| Attachment package | Exact clip or fastener designation and any required accessory identities. | Is the proposed package complete and unambiguous? |
| Supporting interface | Substrate identity and relevant treatment or support information requested for review. | Do the instructions address this supporting condition? |
| Instructions and limits | Document title, revision/date and the relevant application or limitation. | Which requirement is the reviewer comparing against? |
| Disposition | Reviewer, response reference, conditions and unresolved items. | What was actually resolved, and what remains open? |
Worked review: a product name survives, but the profile changes
Fictional coordination example: a submittal names Board A and Clip B. The board’s profile drawing is later revised, while the product name on the cover sheet stays the same. The revision is entered in the interface schedule and compared with the documents used for the earlier review. The previous disposition is retained as history; it is not silently transferred to the revised profile.
The review request identifies the changed drawing revision, affected detail and the exact question to be answered. It asks the appropriate party to address the revised interface under the project process. It does not invent a groove dimension, infer fit from nominal board size or certify that the old clip remains suitable.
This is why the schedule needs document identity as well as product identity. A later repair team should be able to distinguish the assembly originally proposed from the one ultimately recorded for the location.
Separate three different questions in the response
First, is the package identifiable? Second, does the submitted evidence address the proposed combination and its limitations? Third, has the project’s responsible reviewer recorded the required disposition? A supplier can answer an identity question without having authority to resolve every design question. A project review can also include conditions that must travel with the documents given to the installer.
- Quote the conflicting document references rather than paraphrasing them as “manufacturer says okay”.
- List affected locations and distinguish field boards from starts, ends, corners and transitions.
- Record whether the response changes a drawing, product selection, accessory or installation instruction.
- Carry unresolved items forward with an owner and response reference; do not convert an empty field into acceptance.
Use installation responsibilities to assign the handoff and substitution review when the proposed package changes. For component-level compatibility evidence, continue to Fastener Compatibility. This guide owns the specification and submittal record; it does not supply a fastening schedule or compatibility verdict.
Evidence & scope
General wood science context; chapters on lumber, moisture, fastening and finishing. Not a project specification or product approval.
Original planning guidance. References support their stated technical scope; examples and workflows do not establish product approval.