The Comment Log
Every review comment should be entered into a comment log with: drawing number and revision reviewed, comment number (sequential), comment text (verbatim from the EOR's markup), the response (what was done), the drawing revision in which it was incorporated, and the status (open or closed). The comment log should be submitted with every resubmittal so the EOR can verify each prior comment was addressed.
Revision Clouds as Comment Response Documentation
For each EOR comment that results in a drawing change, a revision cloud should surround the changed area on the revised drawing. The cloud's revision letter and the comment log entry should share the same revision identifier. This allows anyone reviewing the drawing to see exactly where changes were made in response to prior comments — and allows the EOR to verify their comment was addressed without reading the entire drawing.
Comments That Require Engineering Decisions
Some EOR comments are not instructions — they are questions or conditional approvals. 'Confirm load capacity of this connection' or 'Revise if column loads are greater than shown in schedule' require a response beyond a drawing change. These comments should generate their own RFI or calculation submittal to close the loop. A drawing revised without addressing the underlying engineering question behind a comment does not result in a closed comment.
Managing Comments Across Multiple Review Cycles
When a project goes through two or three EOR review cycles, the comment log must carry all comments from all cycles — not just the most recent round. A comment from Cycle 1 that was responded to but not satisfactorily resolved may generate a follow-up comment in Cycle 2. Without a single log that maintains the history, the connection between the original comment and the follow-up is lost. The comment log should show: Cycle 1 comment, Cycle 1 response, Cycle 2 follow-up comment (if any), and final resolution — so anyone reading the log can trace each comment through its full lifecycle.
Categorizing Comments by Response Type
EOR comments can be categorized by the type of response they require, which helps the detailing PM prioritize and sequence the revision work.
- Drawing revision required: connection geometry, member size, weld symbol, or dimension change needed
- Calculation submission required: connection load check or design calculation must accompany the revised drawing
- Clarification only: EOR comment is answered by a written response in the comment log without a drawing change
- New scope required: EOR comment identifies a scope item missing from the submittal package that must be detailed and resubmitted
- EOR decision pending: the comment is a question that the EOR will answer in the next round — detailer notes the status
Submitting the Comment Log with Every Resubmittal
Every resubmittal package should include the complete comment log showing all prior comments and their responses — not just the revised drawings. An EOR who receives a resubmittal without a comment log must flip between prior and new drawings to verify that every comment was addressed — a time-consuming process that increases the probability of an extended review cycle. A well-formatted comment log that maps each comment to a specific drawing revision and revision cloud location makes the EOR's review efficient and signals professional competence. EORs who receive organized comment logs consistently return faster review cycles than those who receive drawings alone.
What to Do When an EOR Comment Is Unclear
EOR review comments range from highly specific ('Change 3/8" fillet weld to 5/16" per connection calculations, sheet C-12') to ambiguous ('Review connection at D4'). An ambiguous comment that requires interpretation before it can be incorporated should generate an immediate clarification request to the EOR — not an assumed interpretation. State in the comment log: 'EOR comment 14 interpretation: we understand this to mean [specific action]. Please confirm or clarify.' If the EOR does not respond within the required timeframe, the detailer should document the assumption made and proceed — noting in the revision cloud that the comment was interpreted as confirmed pending explicit EOR acknowledgment.