Flagship
Architect-led A/E Peer Review
Advisory QC for complex-facility documents, coordination, and source-cited findings under licensed-architect judgment.
Review the serviceArchitect-led A/E quality control
AI-assisted peer review for complex facilities, led by a licensed architect. VexASI traces findings to source evidence, then applies human judgment before anything reaches the client.
Advisory peer review. No code approval, permitting authority, sealing, or stamping.
Source relationships and document boundaries are visible.
Licensed architect ledJudgment and client release stay human-controlled.
Source-cited findingsReview comments point back to the documents and evidence.
Complex-facility focusCoordination-heavy environments where omissions carry cost.
Explicit boundariesAdvisory QC, distinct from approval and permitting authority.
A/E peer review
VexASI reviews drawings, specifications, schedules, narratives, and coordination evidence for gaps, conflicts, and unresolved risk. AI expands the evidence search. A licensed architect decides what is material, how it should be stated, and whether it is ready for client release.
Choose the work, not the buzzword
Peer Review is the flagship A/E service. Signaling and workflow advisory solve different problems and do not substitute for professional review.
Flagship
Advisory QC for complex-facility documents, coordination, and source-cited findings under licensed-architect judgment.
Review the serviceSeparate service
Public-source market sensing for account and sector intelligence, with evidence trails and human review gates.
See SignalingAdvisory
Governed evidence workflows for repeated technical work, with explicit review, routing, and handoff controls.
See AI WorkflowsThe evidence/review loop
The process keeps document provenance, uncertainty, professional judgment, and release status visible from intake through delivery.
Confirm documents, disciplines, review questions, exclusions, and the client decision the work must support.
AI assists parsing and comparison across sheets, specifications, schedules, narratives, and cited requirements.
A licensed architect evaluates context, materiality, confidence, coordination impact, and appropriate wording.
Approved findings carry location, evidence, review state, and a clear action without claiming approval authority.
Where the method earns its keep
The peer-review method is designed for technical environments where cross-discipline evidence matters. Signaling is separately available across these markets.
Drawing, specification, schedule, and multi-discipline coordination review.
AEC sector focus
Coordination-intensive laboratory and research environments with evidence-heavy requirements.
Life sciences sector
Facility, process, utility, and operational interfaces where coordination gaps propagate.
Manufacturing sectorFAQ
Short answers on service fit, AI’s role, professional boundaries, and the difference between Peer Review and Signaling.
VexASI provides architect-led advisory quality control and peer review for complex-facility drawings, specifications, schedules, narratives, and coordination evidence. Scope is agreed before review begins.
AI assists with document parsing, comparison, evidence retrieval, and source citation. A licensed architect evaluates the evidence, controls professional judgment, and approves client release.
No. VexASI provides advisory peer review and quality-control findings. It does not act as the authority having jurisdiction, approve code compliance, issue permits, or seal or stamp the design documents.
Peer Review evaluates facility documentation under architect-led judgment. VexASI Signaling is a separate market-intelligence service that monitors public sources and routes source-backed business signals.
The agreed deliverable organizes architect-approved findings with document location, source evidence, context, review status, and a clear question or follow-up action. Exact format depends on scope.
Start with the review boundary
Tell VexASI what is being designed, where coordination risk is concentrated, and what review decision the team needs to make.