On architectural plans, even seemingly small errors in dimensions (for example, a misplaced opening or a 25 mm discrepancy) can cascade into major construction problems and costly rework on site. Assess whether this risk statement is correct.

Introduction / Context:
Architectural drawings coordinate dozens of trades: structural, MEP, interiors, and site works. A small dimensional error can misalign doors with partitions, reduce clearances, or create code violations that drive change orders. We evaluate why such minor errors can cause large downstream issues.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Tight coordination is required between grid lines, walls, openings, and services.
• Fabrication may start from approved drawings before field verification.
• Building codes impose minimum clear widths and headroom.

Concept / Approach:
A 25–50 mm shift can cascade: a door conflicts with a switch, a stair landing loses required clearance, or a façade module no longer aligns to mullions. Because trades work in parallel, late discovery multiplies cost—demolition, new materials, delays, and inspections.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Place dimension strings from stable datums (grids, finished faces).2) Cross-check accumulative dimensions against overall control dimensions.3) Coordinate openings with structural and MEP rough-ins.4) Run clash checks and adjust before issuing for construction.

Verification / Alternative check:
Field RFIs and change orders commonly cite dimension mismatches; post-mortems show that early QA on drawings prevents such issues.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Incorrect”: Underestimates compounding effects on site.“Only structural dimensions matter”: Architectural clearances and alignments are equally critical.“Only millimeter-level errors matter”: Even small nominal shifts at drawings scale can be material at full size.

Common Pitfalls:
Dimensioning to unstable references; missing overall control; relying on scale instead of reading numeric dimensions; inconsistent units between sheets.

Final Answer:
Correct