We reviewed the structure of 20 saved design rows on November 1, 2026 to identify what a useful draft still needs before purchasing. These are stored drafts, not verified installations, distinct customers or a representative sample of irrigation projects. We did not inspect addresses, contact details or maps for this analysis.
What the saved fields showed
| Observation | Rows | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Dedicated flow field contains a number | 19 of 20 | A value was stored, not proof it was measured at operating pressure |
| Dedicated static-pressure field has no numeric value | 17 of 20 | The dedicated field is incomplete; other notes or measurements may exist elsewhere |
| Automated review object is present | 9 of 20 | Review metadata was saved, not independent professional approval |
How we counted
The read-only query selected only flow, static-pressure and structured output fields from the saved-plan table. We counted rows with numeric values and the presence of an automated review object. We did not count users, read customer free text, publish individual rows or inspect installation records. Revisions and test records may be included. Absence from one field is not proof that nobody took a measurement.
The useful finding: a drawing is not an evidence package
A plan can have head locations and a review label while still lacking the field evidence needed to evaluate it. A number such as 10 GPM might be an assumption, a default, a bucket observation or a verified operating allowance. The number alone does not identify which. Before relying on it, record its origin, the pressure maintained during measurement and the point of connection.
Three checks before interpreting a review label
- Identify the reviewer: an automated model, the plan author or an independent qualified professional. Do not use these labels interchangeably.
- Ask what evidence the review considered. Satellite geometry and entered numbers are not field measurements.
- List what remains outside the review: actual boundaries, buried services, locally accepted protection, pressure losses and operating distribution.
From saved output to a reviewable draft
Keep a short evidence ledger alongside the drawing. For each dimension and supply figure, write “assumed,” “entered by user,” or “measured,” with a date and method when known. Preserve uncertainty rather than replacing blanks with plausible defaults. Our plan evidence workbook turns that distinction into a printable next-action list.
A concrete output example: the public 29-head demo
The existing public demo payload contains 29 head objects assigned to 8 model zones, with a modeled area of 9,967 square feet. We counted the head assignments below directly from that published asset. The area is a model value, not a verified property survey. This is a draft-output example, not an installed-system case study.
| Assignment | Heads | Operating demand |
|---|---|---|
| Model zone 1 | 6 | Not established by head count |
| Model zone 2 | 5 | Not established by head count |
| Model zone 3 | 4 | Not established by head count |
| Model zone 4 | 1 | Not established by head count |
| Model zone 5 | 3 | Not established by head count |
| Model zone 6 | 4 | Not established by head count |
| Model zone 7 | 4 | Not established by head count |
| Model zone 8 | 2 | Not established by head count |
The payload provides geometry, arcs, radii and group assignments. It does not provide a verified supply operating point or enough nozzle performance information to establish each zone’s hydraulic demand from these counts alone. Two zones with the same number of heads may have different demand. Do not substitute a generic GPM per head to turn this table into an approval.
A useful review would attach the actual nozzle models and their rated flows at intended pressure, verify the supply at that operating point, and check losses to the demanding head. The animation can illustrate a sequence; it cannot demonstrate measured pressure or distribution. This example shows the distinction between a complete-looking output and a verified design without exposing a customer address or private plan link.
What this audit cannot establish
We did not run the zones, observe coverage, inspect plumbing, check local approvals or confirm that parts were purchased. We cannot report water savings, successful installations, satisfied customers or hydraulic pass rates from these rows. An automated approval field is not a licensed inspection or a manufacturer endorsement.
How to use the finding on your own plan
Start with the water-supply worksheet. Keep unrestricted bucket flow separate from verified flow at required pressure. Check actual nozzle specifications, pressure losses and landscape groupings. Ask the water supplier about connection and backflow requirements, and obtain qualified review where needed before installation.
References and maintenance
The Rain Bird design manual explains hydraulic design principles. EPA WaterSense provides context for professional assessment. The counts above are our own saved-field audit, not findings from those organizations. Prepared by the SprinklerBlueprint editorial team; see editorial standards and report a correction.