Product review (produktgranskning) of the samrådshandling, the documents issued for public consultation, against the kontrollprogram (the review programme). The protocol holds 204 findings across ten disciplines, 9 of them critical. Of the 86 documents the kontrollprogram expects, 4 are missing and 3 are delivered in the wrong revision.
Planbeskrivning p. 41: S3 is a 2.0 m noise barrier on the left side, km 2/340–2/520. Plankarta blad 2: S3 is a 2.2 m wildlife fence on the right side, over another stretch. One of 7 critical conflicts between documents.
Action: agree one meaning of S3 between Environment and Plan. If both measures are needed, give the fence its own code in both documents.
Critical · P-020
Samrådsredogörelse has headings but no content
Pages 3–7 have headings for meetings, comments and responses, and no text under any of them. The consultation report is one of 62 completeness findings.
Action: write the report before the package is issued, or take it out and state in the planbeskrivning when it will follow.
Template text · 39 findings
Template text left in 37 documents
Planbeskrivning section 6.4 (p. 23) still reads Beskriv här hur trafiken ska ledas under byggtiden. Drawings still carry ARBETSMATERIAL in the title block.
Action: write section 6.4 from PM Trafik chapter 6 and clear template text and status fields before issue.
Review protocol and completeness check
Filter the findings by discipline, severity or category, or search for a code, chainage or phrase. Select a finding to see the source page with the passage marked and the recommended action. The completeness check lists every document in the kontrollprogram with its delivery status; the review log shows how the files were split into sub-reviews and merged.
Discipline
Severity
Category
Findings per discipline
204of 204 findings
CriticalMajorMinor
Showing 204 findings
DeliveredWrong versionMissingNot in kontrollprogram
Document
Discipline
Expected
Delivered
Status
Finding
The 84 files were sorted into five discipline groups and reviewed in parallel against the kontrollprogram checklist, then merged into one protocol. Counts per group are before duplicates were merged.
Sort
Review in parallel
Merge
Completeness check
Sources and method
Sources
Samrådshandling_väg715_E-leverans.zipConsultation package as delivered, ten disciplines84 files, 212 MB
Kontrollprogram_produktgranskning.xlsxReview programme: the 86 documents the stage requires, expected revisions and the review checklist86 rows, 3 sheets
Planbeskrivning_samråd.pdfPlan description, read side by side with the plan maps68 pages
Ritningsförteckning_samråd.pdfDrawing list, used to assign files to disciplines3 pages
Method
Each of the 84 files was assigned to one of ten disciplines from the ritningsförteckning (drawing list) and the document numbers, and the disciplines were grouped into five sub-reviews.
Each sub-review read its documents in full against the checklist in the kontrollprogram: consistency, completeness, template text and language.
The planbeskrivning was compared with the plankartor, and each PM (technical memo) with the drawings it describes, for codes, chainages and values that disagree.
The sub-reviews were merged into one protocol. 17 duplicates were combined and one severity scale was applied: critical, major, minor.
Every critical finding was reopened to confirm the quote on the source page, and the delivery was matched against all 86 documents in the kontrollprogram.
Assumptions and limits
This is a product review: completeness, consistency between documents, template text and language. It does not replace the technical review (sakgranskning) within each discipline; calculations, dimensioning and design choices were not checked.
Where two documents disagree, the finding records the conflict. Which value is correct is for the responsible discipline to decide.
Expected documents and revisions are taken from the kontrollprogram. The 2 files not listed there are reported in the completeness check but were not reviewed.
Page excerpts in the document viewer are simplified renderings of the source page with the passage marked. Check against the original PDF before correcting.