Fire alarm submittal packages, drafted from the checklist for the person who stamps them.

A new tenant floor in an office tower, or a panel swap in a hospital wing, begins the same way. Someone pulls that jurisdiction's checklist and works out which sheet, calculation or data sheet answers each line. They build the device schedule from the drawings, write up what each input is meant to do, collect a listing sheet for every device, and try to catch what is missing before the plan reviewer does.

In the proof of concept, AI works from copies of those documents and drafts the package for your designer: the checklist with each line tied to the sheet or file that answers it, the device schedule, a sequence of operation taken from the project documents, the calculation sheets your designer ran, and listing sheets in device order. Nothing is filed anywhere.

A gap restarts the file. Oklahoma's State Fire Marshal opens its January 2026 checklist with the minimum documents from NFPA 72, the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code: a narrative, riser, floor plans, a sequence as matrix or narrative, data sheets, battery and voltage drop calculations, mounting heights and pathway diagrams. Then come its own items: the alarm contractor's Oklahoma license number, each designer's full name without abbreviations, a vicinity map, the NFPA 72 edition year, spacing templates, NFPA 170 symbols and a Scope of Work Letter for existing systems. Anything absent brings denial and a full resubmittal with its fees. So the draft opens with that checklist, every line tied to a sheet or marked empty.

The filing rules can sink a good set. Boston's guidelines, dated April 2023, sort applications into new systems, alterations of ten or fewer devices, alterations of eleven or more, panel-only replacements and communicator-only replacements. The ten counts new, relocated and existing devices together, and a job found over the line gets requeued. Plans show a fire alarm layer only, leave a 3 by 24 inch space for the examiner's stamp, and arrive as one bookmarked PDF converted directly from the drawing, under 40 MB and never scanned. A panel swap adds a cutover procedure: when, how long, and whether the old panel stays in service.

The schedule has to agree with everything else. San Diego's Information Bulletin 137, from October 2025, wants a legend giving each component's description, make and model, mounting criteria and California State Fire Marshal listing number, with notification appliance current draws highlighted on the data sheets. Boston wants candela written as a subscript where strobe types are mixed. Texas State University's May 2025 standard asks for device addresses on each circuit of the riser, point numbers on the floor plans and English action messages. The draft builds one schedule by device type and address, and flags any device that appears on a drawing but not on a data sheet, or the other way around.

Cut sheets get read against the calculations. Boston checks them for UL listing, compatibility and the values used in battery calculations, which must run complete back to the main panel. The University of Rhode Island's May 2026 standard wants current drain listed for normal, supervisory, trouble and alarm conditions and each device marked on its original manufacturer's sheet, and it refuses typical riser diagrams. Texas State wants every formula, variable and constant identified in voltage drop work, accepts no partial submittals, and bills the contractor for its review of a resubmittal after a first rejection. The draft files your designer's sheets as supplied. It sets each published current beside the value on the sheet and marks a difference, without running a number of its own.

The sequence and the signature aren't ours to settle. Boston wants an input/output matrix that also covers elevator recall, smoke control and the signals sent to the monitoring station; San Diego wants a separate sequence where smoke control exists. The draft writes only what the project documents state and lists any input with no stated output. Oklahoma requires a NICET Level III designer or a fire protection engineer, with the NICET stamp on the plans. A Washington State Building Code Council memo on its 2015 amendments had a Level III person or a Washington engineer review documents before permitting, by signed letter or another method the local authority accepts. Texas has a licensed fire alarm planning superintendent date a set and sign it with an original signature, or an engineer seal it. So the cover sheet names the role and leaves the line blank. Your reviewer will check first: lines tied to the wrong sheet, devices missing from the schedule, addresses that don't match the riser, inputs with no output, and values that disagree. These are summaries of public documents read in November 2026, not legal or engineering advice.

After your reviewer's yes, the same job runs on new projects for about 30 days.

A licensed person on your team stamps every submittal, and your office files it the way it does today. Anything the draft couldn't settle arrives marked with the reason.

You get one fixed price for the live job before you sign. Deficiency proposals or another job are priced separately, and monthly support starts once a job is live.