Review cavity interruptions

Trace a path through the actual assembly

A cavity drawn as an empty band may contain brackets, blocking, screens, services and debris traps. Review the actual arrangement, including corners and openings. The useful question is whether the intended drainage and ventilation paths remain continuous under the accepted design.

Identify later work that could enter the space. A lighting cable or fixing added after the cladding layout was approved can create a new coordination question. Record the change before it is concealed.

Locate interruptions rather than declaring a generic gap sufficient

In a fictional wall, the typical field section shows a clear space, but a horizontal feature crosses it at every floor. That repeated condition needs an explicit detail. A larger cavity elsewhere does not answer the interruption.

Use photographs and an inspection record where concealed work must be reviewed. The diagram on this site explains the question; it does not supply a universal cavity size or approve an undocumented wall system.

Write one record for each interruption

Give each observation a location that another person can find: elevation, floor, opening reference and a marked photograph. Record what is visible separately from what the reviewer still needs to establish. A photograph of a member crossing a cavity documents its presence; it does not establish its purpose or the performance of the concealed assembly.

Keep the observation open when the response addresses a different location, a different assembly revision or only part of the question. “Reviewed” should mean that someone considered the record; it should not silently become “accepted for concealment.” Use the project’s own release process.

Worked example: a service crossing behind cladding

This is a hypothetical coordination record, not an installation detail. At opening W-03, a field photograph shows a service crossing the space represented as clear on section D-12. The photograph does not show the full route or the adjacent closure. Record the discrepancy as CI-07 and link both sources rather than drawing an assumed bypass.

A response might require a revised service route, an assembly-specific detail or further information. This example selects none of those outcomes. Do not remove blocking, a closure or a fire-related component merely because it interrupts the line shown in a simplified diagram.

Separate the response from the pre-cover check

Before the interface becomes concealed, compare the visible condition with the applicable response. Check document identity, location and the limits of what the photograph shows. An overall image helps locate the work; a closer view may be needed to show the junction. Neither image should be described as proving a hidden connection or inaccessible path.

Record who reviewed the condition, the date, the evidence considered and any remaining question. Keep the original observation and the response together so a later service alteration can be checked against the same basis. If later work changes the route or adds another interruption, reopen the affected record instead of treating the old closeout as covering the new condition.

Use the penetration register for service identities and the concealed-work guide for evidence capture. This record coordinates the junction; it does not set a drainage design, approve a fire provision or establish an inspection schedule.