Version gaps
A reviewer receives a plan and attachments with different issue dates, but no list of current documents. The first clarification is which set forms the submission. Keep superseded material identifiable so an answer does not accidentally refer to the wrong version.
Project-context gaps
Illustrative example: a plan states that access is controlled, while the work package includes an interface with occupied premises. Ask where the project-specific arrangement is described and which party controls it. A generic sentence is not enough to settle the question, but the reviewer should assess the supplied evidence before making a finding.
Response gaps
A response saying “noted” may acknowledge a comment without answering it. Record the original query, the requested evidence, the response and the reviewer’s next decision. Separate acknowledgement, proposed amendment, revised evidence and accepted closure.
Avoid unsupported frequency claims
These examples illustrate review questions; they are not statistics about Diba projects or a list drawn from confidential reports. Actual evaluation must use the agreed criteria, current submission and competent reviewer. Use a comments log to preserve that evidence trail.
Compare the evidence
| Gap | Clarification |
|---|---|
| Unclear issue set | Which document versions form this submission? |
| Generic interface statement | Where is the project-specific arrangement recorded? |
| Unassigned action | Who is responsible for the response? |
| Unverified closure | Which revised evidence resolves the original comment? |