Review the package
Creating a hardwood specification submittal register
Track evidence, ownership and disposition without confusing receipt with approval.
PRODUCT → SOURCES → REVIEW RECORD
Keep the evidence connected.
Product identity unresolved
Received
≠ approved
≠ approved
11 missing0 required0 requested0 received0 under review0 reviewed0 accepted0 revision required0 superseded0 not applicable
Profile drawing
Moisture basis
Appearance sample
Finish instructions
Fastener compatibility
Installation instructions
Test documentation
Substitution comparison
Delivery / storage plan
Closeout requirements
Statuses are your administrative records. The site does not inspect, approve or upload the referenced documents. Keep the actual source files with your project package.
Your tool inputs stay in this browser unless you choose to submit an inquiry with the record attached.
To freeze evidence with the material fields and revision history, use the material package builder. This standalone register clears when you leave; download it first.
Coordinate drawings, specification notes and the material reference.
Illustrative specification workspace. Blank records and samples do not establish product approval or acceptance criteria.Use one row for each required decision or evidence item, with separate completeness and review states.
Start with the required decisions
Build the register from the actual product and coordination requirements rather than requesting every document that a supplier might own. Product identity, profile drawings, installation instructions, samples and project-specific evidence may need different reviewers and due dates. Give each item a stable identifier and a clear description of what must be submitted. Include the responsible submitter and the requirement it answers. Where a document is not applicable, require a short recorded reason instead of allowing an empty row to resemble completed work.
Separate the status fields
Document received, information complete and technically accepted are different events. Use a completeness field for presence of requested information, and a distinct review field for the authorized disposition. A checklist percentage can describe recorded items only. It must not imply that the design is safe, compliant or ready to build. Add the document revision, received date, reviewer, response date and open comments so someone else can understand the current state without reconstructing email history. Link to the actual file rather than relying on its title alone.
Manage resubmissions deliberately
Keep the stable item identifier when a revised document arrives, but increment or record its revision and retain the earlier response. Request a description of what changed so a reviewer can focus on the unresolved issue without missing new differences. Identify items that affect procurement or other submissions and make those dependencies visible. Before release, verify that the correct disposition belongs to the current version. At closeout, retain a final register with links to the installed product records. It should provide an audit trail of decisions, including items deliberately excluded from the package.
Make every requested document answer a project question
A submittal register should explain what is needed, why it is needed and when it must be reviewed. A long list of generic brochures can conceal the absence of a critical profile drawing or accessory identification. Start from the actual requirements and connect each document to the field or decision it supports.
Separate product data, samples, shop or production drawings, test information, installation instructions and closeout material. They have different purposes and may arrive at different times. The WBDG unified-submittals reference illustrates the value of distinguishing submittal types; its federal-system classifications are not automatically the contract procedure for every private project.
Track the decision as well as the file
Scroll sideways to read all columns. Keyboard: focus the table and use the arrow keys.
| Register field | Useful entry |
|---|---|
| Identifier | Stable reference used in correspondence and drawings |
| Requirement | Exact product or specification question |
| Submitted item | Document title, revision, date and selected option |
| Review responsibility | Named project role responsible for the decision |
| Status | Pending, returned for clarification, accepted with conditions, or other project-defined outcome |
| Open item | Specific missing evidence and expected respondent |
| Affected work | Purchase, fabrication or installation activity that depends on the response |
A file marked received is not necessarily reviewed. A document marked reviewed is not necessarily an unconditional acceptance of every statement it contains. Use the status vocabulary established for the project and preserve any conditions in plain view.
Avoid approving a whole catalog by accident
When a manufacturer document lists several models, sizes or materials, identify the exact proposed selection. The review should not require someone to infer which row applies. Likewise, highlight the relevant profile revision and accessory configuration rather than uploading several conflicting drawings with no explanation.
For a sample, record its physical identifier and storage location. A PDF register should let a later reviewer find the actual reference. For a mockup, identify the location, materials and features that were evaluated. Photographs support that record but do not replace every physical or dimensional assessment.
Put unresolved items where they affect the sequence
A missing finish colour may affect a sample approval. A missing groove drawing may affect machining and fastening review. An unresolved overhead attachment detail can affect installation planning. Show those dependencies before a procurement or fabrication step proceeds under an assumption.
If the project elects to proceed with a limited release, record exactly what was released and what remains unresolved under the project's authority. Do not let a partial decision appear as blanket approval in the exported worksheet.
Close the record with what was actually supplied
At closeout, reconcile accepted submittals with delivery labels, revisions, substitutions and installed locations. Retain current care instructions and the relevant product records. Archive superseded material clearly so it remains available for history without being mistaken for the current instruction.
Continue with installation responsibilities and closeout records. The register is useful when another person can answer what was selected, what evidence supported it and which questions were still open at the time of the decision.
Evidence & scope
Original planning guidance. References support their stated technical scope; examples and workflows do not establish product approval.