In scope or out.
Decided in seconds.
Classifies every comment against the project agreement and specifications, with the clause that decides it.
Five checks per comment.
Every call comes with its reasoning.
Not a label, an argument. Why the comment is rejected, which sections decide it, and what it costs downstream if you accept it anyway.
This comment is not accepted. The proposal to terminate the bike path 5 meters before the property line directly contradicts the contract requirement for direct and seamless connections to municipal networks, as specified in the Design Standards.
Sections 3.2.d and 3.2.e explicitly require 'direct bidirectional connections' and a 'direct connection to the off-site bikeway'. A 5-meter gap is the opposite of a direct and seamless connection.
Safety · DS-07 3.2.d An uncontrolled gap forces cyclists into an unsafe transition zone with no defined path.
Accessibility · DS-07 3.2.a A barrier for users of adaptive bicycles and those with mobility challenges.
Recommendation: formally reject. The on-site bikeway must connect directly with the municipal network at the property line.
Grounded in the contract.
Every reference jumps to its clause, highlighted on the page it lives on. Nothing to take on faith.
You can overrule it.
Set the classification yourself, record why, add a note. The override is saved with the record.
Reviewed as a team.
Comments live on each classification. Accept, override, or reanalyze, with full version history.