Why Do Code Documentation and Traceability Matter So Much (and Why Do Firms Fail at It)?

Code documentation and traceability matter because every code interpretation made during design carries legal, safety, and regulatory consequences. Decisions related to egress, fire protection, accessibility, ventilation, hazardous materials, and exceptions must be defensible, traceable, and reproducible - not only for permit approval and inspections, but also for liability protection if something goes wrong. Without a documented record of how requirements were interpreted, which editions were applied, what exceptions were used, and why certain choices were made, firms cannot prove due diligence, cannot resolve disputes efficiently, and cannot preserve institutional knowledge for future projects.

Yet most firms fail at code documentation because their workflows are fragmented and informal. Critical decisions live in Slack threads, emails, PDF markups, personal notebooks, hallway conversations, or the memories of senior staff. There is no centralized code repository, no standardized decision log, and no firm-wide workflow. Code research is rarely billable, interpretations evolve across design phases, multiple disciplines contribute without shared ownership, and everyone assumes someone else documented the final decision. As a result, teams repeat research on every project, apply inconsistent interpretations, struggle during AHJ reviews and field inspections, and face heightened liability exposure.

Good documentation requires structure - code matrices, decision logs, annotated drawings, version-controlled amendments, and centralized repositories - but most firms lack the process, culture, and tools to implement it.

Introduction: Code Decisions Aren’t Just Answers - They’re Liability

Unlike design sketches or engineering calculations, code decisions carry legal implications. Every choice made - fire ratings, egress sizing, accessibility clearances, mechanical ventilation, sprinkler thresholds - must be:

• defensible
• documented
• traceable
• reproducible

But most firms treat code research as something informal: a quick search, a Slack message, a conversation with a senior, or a handwritten note. This approach works - until it doesn’t.

Below we explore why documentation matters, why firms consistently fail at it, and how this contributes to delays, rework, and risk across the industry.

1. Why Code Documentation and Traceability Are Critical

1.1 Code interpretations are legally binding decisions

If something goes wrong - fire, injury, accessibility complaint - the question becomes: “Why did you interpret the code this way?”

Without documentation, firms cannot prove they acted responsibly.

1.2 AHJs expect clear justifications

During plan review, AHJs often request:

• code studies
• narrative justifications
• section-by-section breakdowns
• references to adopted code editions
• documentation of exceptions

Weak documentation → slower permits + more corrections.

1.3 Firms need traceability to defend decisions

In disputes or lawsuits, the burden is on the design team to show:

• how they read the code
• which exceptions applied
• what amendments were used
• how alternatives were justified

Without a documented trail, firms are exposed.

1.4 Future project teams rely on past logic

Code decisions form “precedent” that informs:

• future designs
• future scopes
• future interpretations

Without documentation, each project becomes a blank slate.

2. The Typical Reality: Code Decisions Aren’t Documented Anywhere Useful

Most firms rely on ad hoc, decentralized methods.

2.1 Emails and Slack messages

Critical decisions are often hidden in:

• internal chats
• 20-message email threads
• conversations with seniors

Impossible to retrieve later.

2.2 PDF markups and redlines

Code decisions embedded in:

• commented PDFs
• screenshot annotations
• markup layers

These often get overwritten or lost.

2.3 Personal notes

Many decisions live in:

• notebooks
• sticky notes
• personal OneNote files
• people's heads

These leave the firm when people leave.

2.4 Verbal instructions

One of the most dangerous failure points: “Just trust me, I’ve done this before.” Zero documentation.

2.5 Old checklists that are never updated

Teams use outdated:

• Excel checklists
• Word templates
• legacy project files

Often based on older code cycles.

3. Why Firms Consistently Fail at Code Documentation

3.1 No standardized workflow

Every designer has their own method.
Most firms have no:

• code log
• central repository
• official documentation process

3.2 Code research isn’t billable

Teams feel pressure to:

• finish fast
• skip note-taking
• avoid writing detailed justifications

This creates a culture of “speed over accuracy.”

3.3 Code interpretations evolve during the project

Designs evolve - and so do interpretations.
But teams rarely update:

• earlier decisions
• earlier clarifications
• earlier assumptions

Leading to inconsistencies.

3.4 Code decisions involve multiple disciplines

Architecture + MEP + fire protection + structural must align.
No single person “owns” the documentation, so no one documents it.

3.5 Everyone assumes someone else kept the record

“Didn’t the fire consultant write this?”
“Did the architect document this exception?”
“Did the MEP team note their airflow calculations?”
Often → nobody did.

3.6 People underestimate the importance until something fails

Permit rejection?
Inspector redline?
Client complaint?
Lawsuit?

Only then does documentation become a priority.

4. The Consequences of Poor Documentation

4.1 Repeated research across every project

Costly, slow, and inefficient.
Every team re-learns the same code.

4.2 Inconsistent interpretations

Different teams = different answers = permitting problems.

4.3 Failed plan reviews

Lack of justification = AHJ pushback.

4.4 Failed inspections

Field conditions differ from undocumented design assumptions.

4.5 Liability exposure

No proof = no defense.

4.6 Loss of institutional knowledge

When seniors retire or switch firms, decades of knowledge vanish.

4.7 Inefficient conflict resolution

Without documentation, teams don’t know:

• what was decided
• why it was decided
• when it was decided
• who decided it

This leads to circular conversations.

‍

5. The Hardest Areas to Document Properly

5.1 Fire protection logic

Documenting exceptions for sprinklers, fire barriers, smoke partitions, and alarm strategies is extremely complex.

5.2 Egress justification

Occupant load → exit width → ratings → discharge paths requires multi-code reasoning and formal documentation.

5.3 Accessibility

ADA + ANSI + local amendments -> high documentation burden.

5.4 Mechanical ventilation

ASHRAE vs. IMC vs. IECC → conflicting requirements.

5.5 Alternative Means & Methods (AMMRs)

Require strong narratives and long-term traceability.

5.6 Hazardous materials compliance

Highly regulated across multiple codes & standards.

‍

6. What Good Code Documentation Looks Like

While most firms lack this, best practices include:

6.1 Code matrices

Structured tables of applicable requirements.

6.2 Decision logs

Chronological record of:

• interpretations
• assumptions
• clarifications

6.3 Narrative code reports

Used for plan review submissions.

6.4 Annotated drawings

Showing where each rule impacts design.

6.5 Centralized code repository

Accessible across teams.

6.6 Version-controlled amendment lists

Tracking changes across code cycles.

6.7 Documentation of AHJ conversations

Especially when decisions are made informally.

‍

FAQs

1. Why do firms struggle with code documentation?

Because workflows are unstructured, decentralized, and rely on emails, chats, and personal memory instead of standardized systems.

2. Why is traceability important for code decisions?

It provides defensibility, supports permitting, strengthens liability protection, and preserves institutional knowledge for future projects.

3. What happens when code interpretations aren’t documented?

Teams repeat research, make inconsistent decisions, face plan-review delays, fail inspections, and increase legal risk.

4. Who is responsible for documenting code decisions?

All disciplines share responsibility, but firms often fail because no single person or team “owns” documentation.

5. Which code areas require the most rigorous documentation?

Egress logic, fire protection strategies, accessibility interpretations, mechanical ventilation paths, hazardous materials compliance, and any Alternate Means & Methods requests.

6. Why do code decisions get lost so easily?

Because they’re buried in email threads, Slack messages, PDF markups, personal notes, and conversations that never make it into project records.

7. How should code research ideally be documented?

Through structured code matrices, decision logs, annotated drawings, narrative code reports, version-controlled amendment lists, and a centralized, searchable repository.

8. Why does poor documentation increase liability?

If an incident occurs, the firm cannot prove how or why the decision was made - making it appear uninformed or negligent.

9. How does poor documentation affect permitting?

AHJs expect clear justification. Missing documentation leads to questions, corrections, delays, and resubmissions.

10. What is the biggest long-term cost of poor documentation?

Loss of institutional knowledge - when senior staff leave, their interpretations and reasoning leave with them.

‍

References

ICC Codes (IBC/IFC/IEBC), NFPA Codes (13, 72, 101), ADA Standards, ANSI A117.1, ASHRAE Standards, state and local amendments, industry best practices for permitting and documentation, and extensive real-world experience across architecture, engineering, and construction.