A comment resolution sheet (CRS) is only as useful as the entries inside it. This page gives concrete, worked examples of CRS entries across three disciplines so you can see what a well-formed comment, response, and closure look like — then copy the pattern into your own free CRS template for Excel.
Every example below uses the same core fields: a permanent Comment ID, the document and revision, a location reference, the comment written as a verifiable requirement, the author's response and response code, and a status that only the reviewer can close. For the full definition, see What Is a Comment Resolution Sheet?
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Comment ID | C-017 |
| Document / Revision | DWG-ST-2101 · Rev B |
| Location | Grid C-4, Detail 3 |
| Comment | Beam-to-column moment connection has no stiffener plates; required per spec S-200 §5.3 |
| Category / Criticality | Technical / High |
| Author Response | Stiffener plates added; see Rev C, Detail 3 |
| Response Code | Accepted |
| Status | Closed — verified J. Weber, 2026-07-12 |
A good structural comment names the standard it is testing against, so closure is objective: either the stiffener plates appear in the next revision or they do not.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Comment ID | C-041 |
| Document / Revision | DWG-ME-1204 · Rev A |
| Location | Level 2 ceiling void, Gridline 7 |
| Comment | Supply duct clashes with sprinkler main; maintain 50 mm clearance per coordination spec |
| Category / Criticality | Technical / High |
| Author Response | Duct rerouted 150 mm below main; clash cleared in Rev B |
| Response Code | Accepted with Comment |
| Status | Answered — awaiting reviewer verification |
Note the status: an "Accepted with Comment" response moves the entry to Answered, not Closed. Closure waits until the reviewer confirms the clash is cleared in the revised model or drawing.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Comment ID | C-058 |
| Document / Revision | DWG-AR-3050 · Rev C |
| Location | Door schedule, opening D-214 |
| Comment | Door to electrical room shown as 30-minute rated; requires 60-minute rating per fire strategy §4.1 |
| Category / Criticality | Technical / High |
| Author Response | Fire strategy allows 30-minute where room is sprinklered; sprinkler shown on M-series |
| Response Code | Rejected |
| Status | In Discussion — escalated to fire engineer |
A rejection is a healthy outcome when it is justified — here the author cites the sprinkler provision. What matters is that the entry does not just stop: it is escalated to a named decision-maker rather than left open.
These examples work in a spreadsheet for a small review. Once several reviewers comment in parallel and revisions stack up, keeping IDs stable and statuses honest becomes manual work. Contrat.io makes each comment a tracked item with a permanent ID, role-based closure, and automatic carry-over of open comments between revisions — try it free for 30 days, no credit card required.
It has a permanent Comment ID, the document and revision, a precise location, the comment written as a verifiable requirement, the author's response and response code, and a status closed only after the reviewer verifies the fix.
State it as a testable requirement that names the basis — the spec, clause, or datasheet — so closure is objective rather than a matter of opinion.
It is the author's answer to a single comment: Accepted, Accepted with Comment, Rejected, or Clarification Needed. A response is not a resolution — the reviewer still verifies and closes.
Only the reviewer who raised it, after confirming the change in the revised document. Letting authors close their own comments removes the audit value of the CRS.