Accuracy study

4116 scope items.
5 were missing.

Professional estimators in commercial construction put 10 real drawing sets through Pinpoint and reviewed every line it produced, in the app, against the drawings. This is what they found, exported with no filters applied: every item, every division, and all 13 lines they wrote themselves — the 5 misses and the 8 that were not ours to find — printed in full below with the reasoning attached.

99.8%
Of the scope came from Pinpoint
5 of 4116 items were missing from what Pinpoint wrote. Counting all 13 added lines instead, including the ones below: 99.6%.
5
Items Pinpoint missed
In the drawings or the specifications, and not in what we produced. Every one is listed on this page.
8
Added, but not misses
3 the estimator wrote twice, and 5 that no drawing and no specification contains. Listed, with the reasoning, below.
23
CSI divisions covered
Division 00 through 33 — procurement and general conditions, sitework, architectural, MEP and life safety.

Four things can happen to a line. Only one of them is about us.

Pinpoint reads the set and writes a scope of work. An estimator then goes through it item by item in the app, and the export records what they did to each one. Those records are not equally interesting, and treating them as if they were is how an accuracy number stops meaning anything.

Unchanged
Pinpoint wrote it, the estimator read it, and did not touch a word of it.
264464.2%
Reworded
The item was right; the sentence became the estimator’s own. House language, mostly.
1874.5%
Excluded by the estimator
Right, and not worth a line in this proposal. Standard work everyone assumes, or another package’s scope.
127230.9%
Added by the estimator
The estimator wrote the line themselves. Some are our misses; the rest are split out below.
130.3%

The accuracy figure on this page comes out of the last of those four and nothing else: the added lines that were genuinely missing, over every row in the export. Rewording is style. Excluding is a decision about the proposal. Neither is netted against the number in either direction. And not every added line is a miss — the next section splits all 13 of them and shows both figures.

Every division, every project

Pick a project, or leave it on all of them. Toggle a series off to rescale the bars — hiding the excluded items is the quickest way to see what the estimator actually kept. A red chip is a division we missed something in; an amber chip is a line the estimator added that turned out to be a duplicate or absent from the documents. Click the row to read either.

00Procurement and Contracting Requirements
175
01General Requirements
243
02Existing Conditions
104
04Masonry
49
05Metals
56
06Wood & Plastics
380
07Thermal and Moisture Protection
247
09Finishes
485
11Equipment
36
12Furnishings
94
22Plumbing
315
23HVAC
341
25Integrated Automation
9
27Communications
50
31Earthwork
119
33Utilities
93
4116 items5 missed8 added, not a miss99.8% from Pinpoint23 divisions

The 13 lines an estimator added

Not a sample. Every item a reviewing estimator wrote themselves, across all 4116 lines, exactly as they wrote it — and what each one turned out to be. 5 of them are ours; the rest are a duplicate of a line Pinpoint already wrote, or scope that appears in no drawing and no specification.

What the 13 added lines turned out to be
5Missed by Pinpoint
The line is in the drawings or the specifications and Pinpoint did not produce it. This is the number.
3Already in the scope
Pinpoint had already written this line. The estimator wrote it again rather than finding the one that was there. Nothing was missing from the scope.
5Not in the documents
No drawing and no specification contains it. The design documents have a gap and the estimator closed it from experience. Real scope, and not something a document reader can find.
The headline counts the 5 misses and nothing else: 99.8%. Count every added line as a miss instead — duplicates, drawing gaps and all — and it is 99.6%. Nothing has been removed from the export or from the denominator to get either number, and every line is printed below whichever group it fell into. Today the split is recorded by the reviewing estimator after the fact, which is a weaker thing than it should be; it belongs in the app, set at review time, before anyone knows what it is worth.
Missed by Pinpoint5 lines · counted against the accuracy figure
DIV 03 · CONCRETE
Provide new concrete slab in area where removed
Where it was in the set
The plumbing set carries ‘PATCH AND REPAIR BY OTHERS, TYPICAL.’ at the trenching. There is no architectural sectional detail for the patch-back — usually where this is found — but the requirement is in the documents, so it is ours.
Scope A · kept in the final scope
DIV 03 · CONCRETE
Replace concrete in areas where removed
Where it was in the set
The plumbing set carries ‘PATCH AND REPAIR BY OTHERS, TYPICAL.’ at the trenching. There is no architectural sectional detail for the patch-back — usually where this is found — but the requirement is in the documents, so it is ours.
Scope D · kept in the final scope
DIV 03 · CONCRETE
Pour back concrete where removed for underground plumbing.
Where it was in the set
The plumbing set carries ‘PATCH AND REPAIR BY OTHERS, TYPICAL.’ at the trenching. There is no architectural sectional detail for the patch-back — usually where this is found — but the requirement is in the documents, so it is ours.
Scope F · written, then left out of the final scope
DIV 03 · CONCRETE
Provide and install new interior concrete for slab pour back at MEP below slab items.
Where it was in the set
The plumbing set carries ‘PATCH AND REPAIR BY OTHERS, TYPICAL.’ at the trenching. There is no architectural sectional detail for the patch-back — usually where this is found — but the requirement is in the documents, so it is ours.
Scope G · kept in the final scope
DIV 03 · CONCRETE
Concrete coring for plumbing at Kitchenette and Conference Room floor box.
Where it was in the set
The plumbing set carries ‘ALL FLOOR PENETRATIONS THROUGH CONCRETE SLABS MUST BE CORE-BORED OR SAWCUT, SLEEVED, SEALED …’. It is a plain instruction on a sheet Pinpoint read, and Pinpoint did not produce a concrete line for it.
Scope I · kept in the final scope
Already in the scope3 lines · not counted
DIV 26 · ELECTRICAL
Provide complete rough-ins—including backboxes, in-wall raceways, 1” EMT conduits with pullstrings, and dedicated power—for all telecommunications, audiovisual (Media Station, OFOI TVs, speakers), and security systems, and coordinate final device installation with the Owner’s designated IT and A/V vendors.
Why it is not a miss
Pinpoint had already scoped the telecommunications, audiovisual and security rough-ins. The estimator restated them as one consolidated line rather than working from the ones that were there.
Scope A · kept in the final scope
DIV 32 · EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
Patch asphalt pavement as needed for new storm pipe installation
Why it is not a miss
Pinpoint had already scoped asphalt patching at the storm line. The estimator wrote a second line for the same work.
Scope C · kept in the final scope
DIV 28 · ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
Prepare and submit deferred submittals for fire alarm
Why it is not a miss
The deferred fire alarm submittal was already in Pinpoint’s scope. The estimator wrote it a second time.
Scope E · kept in the final scope
Not in the documents5 lines · not counted
DIV 08 · OPENINGS
Provide door hardware; standard office hardware is assumed.
Why it is not a miss
The architectural set carries no hardware schedule and no hardware sets. The estimator assumed standard office hardware, which is a judgment about a missing document rather than a reading of one.
Scope F · written, then left out of the final scope
DIV 21 · FIRE SUPPRESSION
Add, remove, adjust fire suppression as needed to accommodate the proposed floor plan
Why it is not a miss
The set has no fire protection drawings. Sprinkler head relocation to suit a new ceiling and partition layout is deferred to the contractor and appears nowhere in the documents.
Scope F · kept in the final scope
DIV 10 · SPECIALTIES
ADA/Restroom signage
Why it is not a miss
No signage appears anywhere in the architectural set — no schedule, no plan tag, no detail. The estimator carried it because the restrooms will not pass inspection without it.
Scope G · written, then left out of the final scope
DIV 08 · OPENINGS
Provide and install door hardware; assume standard office hardware.
Why it is not a miss
The architectural set carries no hardware schedule and no hardware sets. The estimator assumed standard office hardware, which is a judgment about a missing document rather than a reading of one.
Scope I · written, then left out of the final scope
DIV 21 · FIRE SUPPRESSION
Add, remove, adjust fire suppression as needed to accommodate the proposed floor plan
Why it is not a miss
The set has no fire protection drawings. Sprinkler head relocation to suit a new ceiling and partition layout is deferred to the contractor and appears nowhere in the documents.
Scope I · kept in the final scope
The misses have a shape. All 5 sit in a single division — Concrete. A miss that concentrates is a fix, because there is one place to go and look. A miss that scatters is a warning, because there is no single thing to correct. These concentrate, and knowing where matters more to us than the count does. They turned up in 5 of the 10 scopes; the other 5 scopes produced none at all, so nothing is claimed about those.

30.9% of every export gets excluded. That is the product working.

1272 of these 4116 items were switched off by the estimator. If that reads like an error rate, it is worth saying plainly what it is instead.

Excluding a line does not mean it was wrong. It means the estimator decided it did not need to be in the proposal. Most of these are standard and assumed — the one-year warranty every contract already carries, final cleaning, code-required work every bidder is doing and nobody itemises. The scope is still being performed and still being priced; writing it down would just make the proposal longer than anyone will read.

Nothing is deleted when it is excluded. It stays in the export, tied to its sheet, with the exclusion recorded — which is how these figures exist at all.

Where the 4116 items ended up
Everything Pinpoint produced4103
In the estimator’s proposal2803
Excluded by the estimator1272
Left unmarked either way41
Added by the estimator13
The middle three sum to 4116 — every row is in the proposal, excluded from it, or was never marked either way. The first and last rows cut across all three: Pinpoint wrote 4103 of these lines and the estimator wrote the other 13. Excluded lines stay in the denominator of the accuracy figure, because Pinpoint still wrote them.

How this was measured

The questions a commercial estimator would ask about a number like this. Open any of them.

Whose projects are these, and who reviewed them?
10 complete commercial drawing sets, run through Pinpoint the way a customer runs one, producing 10 scopes. Every one was then reviewed line by line, in the app, against the drawings, by working commercial-construction estimators. There was no answer key and nothing to check against — what they added is what a professional thought was missing.
What exactly was exported, and could anything have been dropped?
Every export was taken with no filters applied and no view selected — all items, included and excluded, in every division. There is no step at which anything was dropped for looking bad, and the item-level export is the only view in which a miss is guaranteed to appear at all.
Who decides that an added line was not a miss?
A reviewing estimator, and today they do it after the export rather than during the review, which is weaker than it should be and is the reason both figures are published. Every added line is listed on this page under one of three headings with the reasoning attached, nothing is removed from the export or the denominator, and a line with no recorded reason counts as a miss by default. The split lives in one small file in the public repository — not in the generated data — so it can be read in a minute. The version worth having puts the field in the app, set at review time, before anyone can know what it is worth; that is a product change and it is the next one.
Why not the package view?
Pinpoint can group related items into packages, and that export is shorter and easier to read. It is the wrong instrument here: a package prints as one row carrying no original/edited/added value of its own, and its members are not rows at all — so a miss inside a package is invisible, and most of the items vanish from the denominator. Measured on one of these scopes when the study was smaller, the package view showed two thirds fewer rows and one fewer miss. The study uses the item export for exactly that reason.
What was removed before any of this was published?
Building names, street addresses, job numbers, suite numbers and source filenames are stripped before anything is published. The figures are generated from the raw exports by script rather than transcribed, and the script refuses to write if any of those identifier shapes survives its own scrubbing. Redactions are visible tokens rather than plausible substitutes, so an altered quote says so. Nothing else is changed — the added items are quoted as the estimator typed them.
How big were the drawing sets?
The sets ranged from 25 drawings with no specification book at all, up to 86 drawings and 821 pages of specifications. Pinpoint read whichever it was given.
What does this not prove?
These are commercial fit-out and core-and-shell scopes. It is not a claim about heavy civil, industrial or ground-up structural work, and it is a small sample: 10 scopes, 10 drawing sets, 4116 items. Every project we measure gets added here, including the ones that come out worse.
Where do these numbers come from?
Last generated 2026-08-28. Every figure on this page is computed from the exports at build time rather than written by hand, so the page cannot drift from the data behind it. Ask and we will walk you through a raw export.
Is there anything else we should say?
An estimator sometimes adds a line that no drawing and no specification contains — concrete pour-back where underground plumbing came out, temporary protection through a phased occupancy, sprinkler heads moved to suit a ceiling nobody drew. It is real scope and it belongs in the bid, but it is knowledge of how buildings go together rather than anything in the documents, and Pinpoint reads documents. Those lines are listed above under Not in the documents, with the reason attached, and they are not in the headline figure. The figure that counts every added line as a miss is printed beside the headline everywhere it appears, so you can take whichever of the two you think is fair.

Run your own set and check us.

The free tier reads a real project and gives you the same export these figures came from. No card needed — count the adds yourself.

Start free