Sheet Revision Cloud Discipline on a Fast-Track Package
A 40-sheet construction set is being issued in three packages: A (sheets A-101 to A-120), B (A-121 to A-140), and C (A-141 to A-160). Package A was issued two weeks ago with revision 1 clouds on 14 sheets. Since then, the design team has made changes to 9 sheets in package A and 11 sheets in package B. The project architect asks you to issue revision 2 for package A only, but the changes to package B sheets are also complete and the contractor is asking for them. The titleblock revision schedule is set to "By Sheet," and the revision clouds on package A were drawn on the sheet views rather than in the model. A junior drafter added three clouds directly in a plan view (model space) on one sheet. The revision schedule shows revision 1 dated correctly, but revision 2's date field is blank on three sheets. The contractor's RFI log shows they are tracking revisions by sheet number and revision number, and they have already flagged two sheets where the cloud does not match the change described in the revision note.
1. Determine whether to issue revision 2 for package A only or to combine packages A and B, and justify the decision against the contractor's tracking method and the revision schedule configuration.
Read the worked answer
The decision hinges on what the contractor is tracking and what the revision schedule can represent. The contractor tracks by sheet number plus revision number, and the titleblock schedule is set to "By Sheet." That configuration means each sheet carries its own revision sequence; a revision 2 on sheet A-105 is independent of a revision 2 on sheet B-130. Combining packages is therefore technically possible but communicatively dangerous: the contractor would see revision 2 on sheets in both packages and could reasonably infer a single coordinated issue, when in fact package B has not been through the same review cycle.
Recommended decision: issue revision 2 for package A only, and issue package B as its own revision 2 (or revision 1 if package B was never issued). The determining facts:
- Package B has not been issued before, so its first issue should be revision 1, not revision 2. Giving it revision 2 would imply a prior issue that does not exist and would break the contractor's revision log.
- The "By Sheet" schedule supports independent per-sheet sequences, so there is no technical barrier to different revision numbers across packages.
- The contractor's RFI log already tracks by sheet and revision; a combined issue would generate confusion about which sheets were previously issued.
If the client insists on a single issue, the compromise is to issue one transmittal with two revision designations and a cover sheet mapping each sheet to its revision number. But the default judgment is: do not combine issues that have different histories. The revision number is a contract document, not a cosmetic label.
2. Address the misplaced model-space clouds, the blank revision dates on three sheets, and the two sheets where clouds do not match their revision notes.
Read the worked answer
Three separate defects, three separate fixes, in order of risk:
1. Model-space clouds (highest risk). Clouds drawn in a plan view appear on every sheet that places that view, including sheets the drafter never intended. They also cannot be individually controlled per sheet. Fix: delete the three model-space clouds and redraw them on the sheet views where they belong. If the change genuinely affects multiple sheets, create the cloud once on the sheet that documents the change and add a revision note cross-reference on the others. Leaving model-space clouds in place means the next person who places that view inherits clouds they did not create.
2. Blank revision dates on three sheets. The date is a property of the revision row in the sheet's revision schedule, not of the cloud. Fix: open each affected sheet's Sheet Issues/Revisions dialog, confirm revision 2 exists, and populate the date field. Then verify the titleblock's revision schedule is reading the correct row. If the date still will not populate, the titleblock family's revision schedule may be filtered or the revision may be marked "Issued" without a date; check the Issued checkbox state.
3. Clouds that do not match their notes. This is the most serious because it misleads the contractor. For each of the two flagged sheets: read the revision note, locate the actual change, and either move the cloud to the change or rewrite the note to describe what the cloud covers. Do not simply delete the cloud; the change still needs to be communicated. Then add a revision note entry clarifying the correction so the contractor's RFI log can be closed.
The judgment: fix the communication defects (mismatched clouds, blank dates) before the housekeeping defect (model-space clouds), because the contractor is already acting on the wrong information.