Structural modification scopes drafted from the report and the drawings, with every conflict called out.

An estimator gets the structural analysis and the modification drawings and reads both to work out what the crew would install: which members, which bolts, at which elevations. Then come the notes that change the price: what the documents say about climbing and rigging, the inspection due afterward, and any FAA or FCC note on the drawings. The two documents come from different hands on different dates, and they don't always agree.

For the test, AI reads copies of those documents and drafts a scope sheet: members and bolts named as written, climbing and rigging constraints as stated, the post-modification inspection requirement, FAA or FCC notes named on the drawings, and each conflict between the report and the drawings with both sources quoted. It copies what is written and interprets none of it. Your estimator approves every scope.

First, what kind of analysis is it? A report attached to a Jefferson County, Wisconsin, public safety radio RFP calls itself a feasibility analysis because the geotechnical report and foundation drawings weren't available, and says final acceptance of a changed condition must rest on a rigorous analysis. Bannock County, Idaho, makes a feasibility report say so. A post-modification report on file with a Massachusetts town carries a line on whether new equipment may go up before the modification is finished. The sheet records each of those statements as written and names what the report says it was missing.

Members and bolts come in the report's own language. Jefferson County's report groups capacity by legs, diagonals, girts and bolts. The Massachusetts one lists pole shaft, anchor bolt, base plate and pole reinforcement. An analysis attached to Macon-Bibb County, Georgia's 2025 radio tower upgrades bid tables each section by number, elevation band, component and size, down to torque arms and bolt checks, and it analyzes a tower first designed under TIA-222-F against TIA-222-H. The sheet copies each name, elevation and callout with its page, and gives no capacity of its own.

What the report leaves out is scope too. Jefferson County's limitations say mounts, feed line ladders, climbing ladders and lighting mounts weren't analyzed, assume like-new elements and put the sequence of work and any temporary bracing on the installer. Macon-Bibb's addendum told bidders that bent members in a condition assessment need a Georgia structural engineer to decide on repair, that a commercial carrier may have changed antennas or cabling since the last mapping report, and that safety climb work raised at the pre-bid meeting was now in scope. Those lines go on the sheet, because each one moves a number your estimator owns.

Climbing and rigging stay stated, never decided. A 2017 TIA webinar on ANSI/TIA-322 and ANSI/ASSE A10.48 says a rigging plan is required for all tower construction, structural modifications included, documented for Classes II to IV, and that Class IV covers removing structural members or replacing guy wires. It separates the Engineer of Record, who answers for the structure once completed, from the Qualified Engineer, who looks at construction loads, so a passing report on the finished tower may say nothing about the conditions on the way there. Washington's rule, WAC 296-32-24020, has a qualified engineer do the Class IV analysis. The sheet repeats what the documents say on these points and writes "not stated" where they're silent. The plan belongs to your rigger and qualified person.

The inspection, the agencies and the conflict list. Trade coverage of TIA-222 Revision H describes Annex O, Existing Tower Modification Inspection, and Bannock County requires inspection of any modification, while a Connecticut special inspection report expressly leaves modification inspections to the tower owner and general contractor. So the sheet names who the documents say inspects. A height change named on a drawing is carried over as written: FAA notice above 200 feet under 14 CFR 77.9 and a height report within 5 days under 47 CFR 17.57 can follow it, and who files stays open. Then the list your reviewer checks first: Leon County, Texas, in 2026, had a loading table with a whip antenna and a six-foot dish at the same height on each leg, and two sections disagreeing on when sealed designs were due. Conflicts like those get both sources quoted and no winner picked. None of this is legal or engineering advice.

If your reviewer approves, new requests get the same draft scope sheet for roughly 30 days.

Your estimator approves each scope before anyone prices from it, and anything structural still goes to your engineer of record.

The comparison continues on live work. Monthly support and any further job are separate decisions, each with its own price.