INDUSTRY FIELD GUIDE
Municipal plan-review examples for evaluating AI document intake
A plan intake assistant can be evaluated on whether it detects a missing required item and points the applicant to the correct checklist.
NAICS 925120 · Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development
A plan intake assistant can be evaluated on whether it detects a missing required item and points the applicant to the correct checklist. Decisions about compliance or permits remain with authorized officials. Phoenix and Tempe publish plan-review steps that illustrate the kinds of documented requirements a fictional evaluation can use. These public processes establish a practical task. They do not establish a city’s intent to license applicant files. Phoenix construction plan review · Tempe plan review
Build a versioned intake case
Create a fictional application, simplified drawing and municipal checklist reference. Label which document is missing, cite the dated requirement and specify the point at which a human reviewer must take over. Include a case where the same material is acceptable under one application type and insufficient under another. Keep the official current rule separate from your fictional application.
Confirm reuse rights even when material is accessible
Public access to a record and permission for commercial AI use are different questions. Federal government works have a specific rule under U.S. copyright law. Local government records and materials supplied by private applicants or contractors require their own review. Keep exact property addresses, security-sensitive plans and applicant information out of the example. 17 U.S.C. §105
Share the task and a fabricated intake packet. Specify the jurisdiction, checklist version, required evidence and human review boundary. Describe a dataset
Original Fiund exercise
The right application type determines which intake item is missing
A fictional municipality has an independently authored intake checklist and abstract drawings. It illustrates document completeness, not a permit or compliance decision for any actual property.
| Record | Source | What it records |
|---|---|---|
| MI1 | Practice checklist revision C2 | Type A requires form F and diagram D. Type B requires F, D and owner-authority card O. C2 replaces C1 from day 10. |
| MI2 | Mock application X | Type B received day 12; contains F and D, with O absent. |
| MI3 | Comparator and old checklist | Application Y is Type A with F and D. Older C1 omitted O for Type B; no exception authorizes C1 for X. |
Question for the model
Which intake evidence is missing for X under the dated checklist, and why does Y's packet or old C1 not establish X's completeness?
Show the reference answer and checks
MI1 makes C2 applicable after day 10, and MI2 places X on day 12 as Type B. X therefore lacks owner-authority card O under the exercise checklist. Y's F-and-D packet addresses Type A, which has a different requirement, while superseded C1 supplies no exception for X. Identify the missing item and route to a human intake reviewer without approving compliance, issuing a permit or inferring rights to real applicant materials.
- Applying Type A completeness requirements to a Type B application.
- Using an obsolete checklist because it yields a complete result.
Fields to preserve
- Application type and received date
- Selects the relevant practice requirements.
- Checklist revision and item list
- Makes the missing evidence precise.
- Present, absent and exception states
- Preserves the human-review handoff.
Test another case
Provide O but omit D in a new Type B case. Require a fresh item-by-item check instead of memorizing O as every application's missing document.
Use fabricated intake records and independent diagrams. Exclude addresses, applicants, security-sensitive plans and actual permit decisions.
Discuss a contribution
Describe the sources you control, the task they could support and what has already been checked. Use the existing-data assessment for an archive or the collection brief for a new recording project. The contributor agreement defines Fiund’s licensing authority and compensation. A guide or fictional exercise does not establish an accepted collection or a sale.