---
job_no: 2632
job_name: 461 Victoria Rd Gladesville — FRP Works (COLLEGE STREET PUBLIC DOMAIN)
hc: TCE Contracting
created: 2026-05-13
agent: lfcs-pricing (worker)
phase: 3 step 1 (drawing extract)
purpose: Drawing register + vision-pass findings + RFQ-vs-drawings cross-check. Internal-only. Never sanitised — never sent externally.
confidentiality: INTERNAL (§3.2 seam — agent metadata never to bleed into customer-facing artefacts; L1+L2 sanitisation runs at Phase 6 submission).
session_id: 2026-05-13-orch-2632-bootstrap
related:
  - "[[00-brief]]"
  - "[[_Internal/assumptions-log-2632]]"
  - "[[06 - Correspondence/06b - RFIs/RFI-Register-2632]]"
---

# 2632 — Drawing Index (vision-pass)

## Document Set Summary

**Project:** COLLEGE STREET PUBLIC DOMAIN — 461 Victoria Rd, Gladesville NSW 2111
**Design maturity:** DA-stage (Public Domain DA Docs). City of Ryde DA Approval **LDA2023/0272** issued **12.04.2024**, council officer **Soheil Fardy** — "Subject to Conditions of Consent". Latest revision in R-series = R33 Rev D (19.12.23). Other Civil sheets carry Rev A–C. Per §13.13 → posture **defensible-for-variations** locked.

**Source set:** 22 PDFs total in `03 - Plans and Specifications/03a - Issued for Construction/` (Civil 11 + Architectural Combined + Landscape 6 + Geotech 2 + 2 duplicate Civil Combined PDFs at IFC root).

**Vision-pass tier-1 read (7/22):** R31 R32 R33 R35 R41 R42 R50. Sufficient to write RFQ-vs-drawings cross-check + RFI register + first-pass take-off. Tier-2 (Architectural Combined, Geotech, Landscape, Civil R10/R11/R12 services, alt-rev Civil Combined PDFs) deferred to Phase 4 sanity-check unless RFI responses force re-pull.

## Project Parties (drawing title block)

| Role | Party | Source |
|---|---|---|
| End-client | **Charter Hall** | Title block (all R-series) |
| Architect | **nettletontribe** | Title block (all R-series) |
| Civil engineer | **Costin Roe Consulting Pty Ltd** (ABN 50 003 696 446; PO Box N419 Sydney NSW 1220; Level 4, 8 Windmill Street, Millers Point NSW 2000; +61 2 9251 7699; mail@costinroe.com.au) | Title block — Costin Roe drawing-number prefix `C014566.01-R##` |
| Authority | **City of Ryde** — DA LDA2023/0272 approved 12.04.2024 by Soheil Fardy | "Approved Plans" stamp on R33 + R35 |
| Head contractor | **TCE Contracting** (Ahmed Gomaa estimator) | RFQ email 2026-05-11 |
| LFCS scope | Formwork / steel-fix / concrete place+finish / curing across 3 BoQ sections | RFQ verbatim |

## Drawing register (per-drawing yaml blocks)

### Civil (11 sheets + 1 combined-package, +2 alt-rev combineds at IFC root)

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R10
file: Civil/R10.pdf
size_kb: 2409
title: (not yet read — tier-2)
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-2 (services plan — likely existing-services + setout — minor LFCS relevance)
vision_findings: deferred
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R11
file: Civil/R11.pdf
size_kb: 9979
title: (not yet read — tier-2)
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-2 (services plan)
vision_findings: deferred
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R12
file: Civil/R12.pdf
size_kb: 15186
title: (not yet read — tier-2)
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-2 (services plan)
vision_findings: deferred
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R31
file: Civil/R31.pdf
size_kb: 10006
title: ROAD WORKS PLAN — SHEET 1
rev: C
status: read
read_priority: tier-1
vision_findings: |
  - College St × Frank St intersection, Bunnings adjacent edge of site
  - Lot 3001 DP 1268213 (cross-check vs assumptions log row DP 1248213 — typo in log; drawing confirms 1268213)
  - Roadworks Notes 1–7 cited:
    1. All road and pavement works in accordance with City of Ryde specifications
    2. Linemarking per TfNSW QA Specification R145
    3. Service relocation by contractor / authority — NOT LFCS
    4. Pedestrian fencing per TfNSW R0800-15
    5. Existing concrete footpath / driveway / kerb / gutter retained where shown
    6. Existing trees retained unless marked for removal
    7. 100mm topsoil + turf between kerb and property boundary
  - Legend matches R32: existing concrete driveway, existing concrete footpath, existing paved footpath, NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY (dark grey), NEW PAVEMENT (blue), NEW FOOTPATH (pink), NEW EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY (orange), DENOTES EXTENT OF MILL AND RE-SHEET (cross-hatch)
  - References R32 + R33 for continuation east
exclusions_signal: |
  - Linemarking R145 (Note 2) — TfNSW specialist subbie EXCLUSION
  - Pedestrian fencing R0800-15 (Note 4) — specialist subbie EXCLUSION
  - Service relocation (Note 3) — by HC/contractor EXCLUSION
  - Topsoil + turf 100mm (Note 7) — landscape trade EXCLUSION
rfi_candidates: |
  - none directly from R31 (Notes are standard)
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R32
file: Civil/R32.pdf
size_kb: 15292
title: ROAD WORKS PLAN — SHEET 2
rev: C
status: read
read_priority: tier-1
vision_findings: |
  - Continuation of College St east of R31; two new traffic-calming roundabouts visible in plan
  - Lots 3002 DP 1268213 + DP 5442
  - NEW SCOPE elements vs R31:
    - "PROVIDE NEW HEAVY DUTY FOOTWAY CROSSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RYDE STANDARD DRAWING CIV.4.4" (multiple, typical)
    - "MILL AND RE-SHEET COLLEGE STREET HALF ROAD" (asphalt, NOT LFCS)
    - "PROVIDE NEW 1.5m WIDE FOOTPATH, TYPICAL"
    - "EXISTING KIP INLET PIT TO BE CONVERTED TO CLASS 'E' BUTTERFLY GRATE" (refers to R35)
    - "REDUNDANT CROSSOVER TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACE WITH KERB AND GUTTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RYDE STANDARD DRAWING CIV.1.1.1"
    - "PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITION TO EXISTING DRIVEWAY"
  - References R33 for continuation
exclusions_signal: |
  - Mill and re-sheet asphalt (College St half road) — asphalt subbie EXCLUSION
rfi_candidates: |
  - RFQ "Section 1 Road Pavement" (FF/4K, 212 m² @ 125 N25) — does this map to (a) NEW PAVEMENT blue only, (b) NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY + NEW EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY + NEW PAVEMENT combined, or (c) something else? Asphalt mill-and-resheet is clearly HC/asphalt subbie, not LFCS. ($-impact: 30–80 k swing depending on m² interpretation)
  - Existing KIP pit → Class 'E' butterfly grate conversion — minor; HC or LFCS?
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R33
file: Civil/R33.pdf
size_kb: 10262
title: ROAD WORKS PLAN — SHEET 3
rev: D
status: read
read_priority: tier-1
vision_findings: |
  - Two cul-de-sac roundabouts side-by-side with central NEW EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY (orange) interconnect
  - 4 City of Ryde Standard Drawings cited:
    - CIV.1.1.1 — kerb and gutter
    - CIV.3.3 — heavy-duty layback
    - CIV.4.4 — heavy-duty footway crossing
    - SF.2.2 — stainless steel removable bollard
  - New items:
    - "PROVIDE 2 SANDSTONE LOGS (2m × 0.5m × 0.5m) OR TfNSW TYPE F 'JERSEY KERB' BARRIER TO PREVENT ILLEGAL TRAFFIC BETWEEN CUL-DE-SAC" (× 2 clusters)
    - "PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL REMOVABLE BOLLARD" (CIV-SF.2.2) — multiple
    - "PROVIDE NEW STORMWATER PIT OVER EXISTING STORMWATER LINE AND INSTALL CLASS 'D' BUTTERFLY 'V' GRATE. REFER TO R35"
    - "EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED" (× 2)
    - "PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITION TO EXISTING GUTTER"
    - "PROVIDE NEW 1.5m WIDE FOOTPATH TYPICAL"
  - RED MARKUP OVERLAY (post-DA, not part of approved drawing):
    - "The distance between bollard and sandstone jersey barrier is no more than 1.5m" (× 2)
    - "This markup should be corrected with 1500mm"
    - "This position is required to install a signpost with both sides to have a sign 'EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY. KEEP THIS AREA CLEAR AT ALL TIMES'"
exclusions_signal: |
  - Stainless steel removable bollards (CIV-SF.2.2) — supplier-installed or HC-supply. EXCLUSION default (LFCS may price cast-in base only if separately scoped)
  - Sandstone log barriers (2m × 0.5m × 0.5m) — stonework / landscape supplier EXCLUSION
  - Jersey kerb barriers (TfNSW Type F) — precast concrete (TCE-supply) — EXCLUSION
  - Emergency-vehicle signpost (red markup) — signage trade EXCLUSION
  - Tree removal — arborist EXCLUSION
rfi_candidates: |
  - Bollard cast-in base — LFCS install cast-in sleeves (concrete work) or HC?
  - Sandstone-log OR Jersey-kerb barrier — which option to price? Either way LFCS likely place/secure only; supplier TBC
  - Red-markup items (1.5m bollard spacing + emergency signpost) — are these instructions to LFCS, or HC/TCE to-be-clarified? Likely HC-internal markup → exclude from LFCS price until clarified
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R35
file: Civil/R35.pdf
size_kb: 310
title: STORMWATER DRAINAGE DETAILS — BUTTERFLY GRATE PIT
rev: A
status: read
read_priority: tier-1
status_stamp: FOR INFORMATION (not FOR APPROVAL — lower spec maturity)
vision_findings: |
  - Single detail: 900 × 900 Class D butterfly grate pit over existing 300Ø stormwater line
  - Specs:
    - Grate: 900 × 900 CLASS D BUTTERFLY GRATE, welded DCG900 or approved equivalent
    - Reo: M12 @ 200 c/c both ways, 450 lap as req'd, typical
    - Pit walls: implied reinforced concrete + mass concrete benching to falls
    - Inlet/outlet: 300Ø existing stormwater pipe (cut existing pipe to suit proposed pit construction); IL TBC on site
    - "Locally adjust invert of kerb to align with invert of butterfly grate"
    - "Reconstruct road pavement as required" (around pit)
    - Services to confirm on site: water, gas, comms, sewer, electricity (detected + overhead) — full services legend present
exclusions_signal: |
  - Stormwater pipe-cut not in LFCS scope (specialist drainage trade)
rfi_candidates: |
  - Butterfly grate pit (R35 + R32 + R33 callout) is NOT in RFQ BoQ. Net-new LFCS scope — formwork + steel-fix + concrete + cure for the pit walls + benching. $-impact: ~$3–6k (single pit, ~1.5 m³ concrete + ~50 kg reo + ~10 m² wall formwork + cure)
  - Pipe cut + reconnection: drainage subbie or HC scope?
  - Pit count: drawing shows 1 instance — confirm with TCE if other pits also required (R10/R11/R12 services plans may reveal more)
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R41
file: Civil/R41.pdf
size_kb: 790
title: LINEMARKING & SIGNAGE PLAN — SHEET 1
rev: B
status: read
read_priority: tier-1
vision_findings: |
  - College St + Frank St corner (covers same area as R31)
  - All linemarking to TfNSW Delineation Manual + QA Specification R145
  - All transverse linemarking + pavement arrows + chevrons in thermoplastic
  - Linemarking removal by grit blasting or TfNSW-approved alternate
  - ATLM (audio-tactile linemarking) start near Frank St
  - Signage: School Zone 40 (8-9.30 / 2.30-4 school days), Give Way to Pedestrians, No Stopping (existing)
exclusions_signal: |
  - Linemarking + signage — specialist TfNSW R145 subbie EXCLUSION (matches 2629 Tier 1 standard exclusion structure)
rfi_candidates: |
  - none — exclusion straightforward
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R42
file: Civil/R42.pdf
size_kb: 821
title: LINEMARKING & SIGNAGE PLAN — SHEET 2
rev: B
status: read
read_priority: tier-1
vision_findings: |
  - Continuation of R41; covers same area as R32 + roundabout-1
  - "No Through Road" signs (R5-400 L+R), end of ATLM
  - Mill + re-sheet extent cross-hatched (matches R32)
exclusions_signal: |
  - Same as R41 — linemarking EXCLUSION
rfi_candidates: |
  - none
```

```yaml
drawing_no: C014566.01-R50
file: Civil/R50.pdf
size_kb: 240
title: TYPICAL DETAILS
rev: A
status: read
read_priority: tier-1
vision_findings: |
  - Road Pavement Detail (asphalt): 90mm AC14 ASPHALT + 200mm LEAN MIX BASE → this is the COLLEGE STREET MILL-AND-RE-SHEET zone (HC/asphalt subbie, NOT LFCS)
  - Pedestrian Slab Detail: 125mm N25 + SL72 mesh central + 50mm DGB20 → MATCHES RFQ FF/4K ("N25 to 125mm with SL72 mesh central") — this is the LFCS pavement spec
  - Tree-root Pedestrian Slab Detail: 125mm N25 + SL72 mesh + concrete piers cast around tree roots — atypical structural element; EXCLUSION candidate unless RFQ explicit
  - City of Ryde Standard CIV.11 joint spacing cited: TJ (tooled/transverse joints) @ 2.0m c/c max, KJ (keyed/construction joints) @ 6.0m c/c max
exclusions_signal: |
  - Tree-root pedestrian-slab piers — atypical structural — EXCLUSION candidate
  - Mill-and-resheet asphalt (90 AC14 + 200 lean mix) — clearly NOT LFCS
rfi_candidates: |
  - FF/4T anomaly: RFQ says "SL72 mesh in 100mm thick slabs" but R50 pedestrian slab is 125mm. Likely TCE BoQ typo. Confirm 100 or 125 mm thickness for FF/4T — affects spacer block + steel-fix labour line. ($-impact: minor, ~$200–400 spacer + ~0.5 hr/m² labour swing)
  - "Road pavement" terminology mismatch: R50 shows ASPHALT detail labelled "Road Pavement Detail" — yet RFQ FF/4 describes 125mm CONCRETE pavement. Strong evidence "RFQ Section 1 Road Pavement" = footpath/footway concrete (pedestrian slab spec), NOT asphalt road. Confirm with TCE. (See R32 RFI — same root question)
```

```yaml
drawing_no: Civil Combined.pdf (Civil subfolder)
file: Civil/Civil Combined.pdf
size_kb: 65288
title: Combined Civil package (likely duplicate of R-series sheets)
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-3 (low — likely duplicates R10–R50; cross-check rev if needed)
vision_findings: deferred
```

```yaml
drawing_no: Civil Combined.pdf (IFC root — alt 1)
file: 03a/Civil Combined.pdf
size_kb: 38949
title: Alt-rev combined Civil package
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-3
vision_findings: deferred — flag: 3 separate Civil Combined PDFs at different sizes (38 / 65 / 2.4 MB). Likely different rev / package scopes. Rocky to confirm canonical.
```

```yaml
drawing_no: Civil Combined for DA approval Building.pdf
file: 03a/Civil Combined for DA approval Building.pdf
size_kb: 2443
title: Building-specific DA-approval Civil package
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-3 (likely Building works only — outside LFCS public-domain scope)
vision_findings: deferred
```

### Architectural

```yaml
drawing_no: Architectural Combined.pdf
file: 03a/Architectural Combined.pdf
size_kb: 17767
title: (not yet read — tier-2)
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-2 (granite paving FF/6B boundary check + setout reference for hard landscape)
vision_findings: deferred to Phase 4 sanity-check
```

### Landscape

```yaml
drawing_no: L-0000 / L-1001 / L-1002 / L-1003 / L-2001 / Landscape Combined.pdf
files: Landscape/L-*.pdf, Landscape/Landscape Combined.pdf
status: not_read (tier-3)
read_priority: tier-3 — granite paving INSTALL is OUT (Rocky override #1, assumptions log row 14). Landscape drawings primarily inform stonemason scope. LFCS only needs concrete subbase extent confirmation, which Architectural Combined will carry.
vision_findings: deferred — pull only if Architectural Combined silent on granite-base extent
```

### Geotech

```yaml
drawing_no: Geotechnical-Assessment.pdf
file: Geotech/Geotechnical-Assessment.pdf
size_kb: 17618
title: (not yet read — tier-2)
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-2 (confirms subgrade prep + bearing capacity assumptions for FF/4E 200mm lean-mix base; informs assumptions-log row 13 — subgrade prep by HC)
vision_findings: deferred to Phase 4 sanity-check
```

```yaml
drawing_no: Rock-Batter-Inspection-Report.pdf
file: Geotech/Rock-Batter-Inspection-Report.pdf
size_kb: 43112
title: (not yet read — tier-2)
rev: TBC
status: not_read
read_priority: tier-2 (sloping-site signal; cut-and-fill earthworks → HC scope before LFCS mobilises; confirms 00-brief.md Risk #2)
vision_findings: deferred to Phase 4 sanity-check
```

## RFQ-vs-drawings cross-check (13 lines)

`m_drawings` = quantity / spec evidenced by drawings. `m_RFQ` = TCE BoQ qty/spec. Δ = variance + risk.

| # | RFQ ref | RFQ description | RFQ qty/spec | Drawing evidence | Δ / Risk |
|---|---------|----------------|--------------|------------------|----------|
| 1 | FF/4E | 200 mm lean-mix base | 245 m² | R50 pedestrian slab detail: 50 mm DGB20 (NOT 200 lean mix) — 200 lean mix is asphalt detail | **CONFLICT** — RFQ "lean mix base" may be the 50 mm DGB20 subbase OR the asphalt 200 mm lean mix. Strong evidence RFQ FF/4E is mis-titled; likely refers to 50 mm DGB20 subbase under pedestrian slab. RFI candidate #1. ($-impact ~$8–15 k swing) |
| 2 | FF/4K | N25 concrete 125 mm slab — 27 m³ / 212 m² | 212 m² | R50 pedestrian slab detail (125 N25 + SL72) matches; R32 + R33 blue-fill "NEW PAVEMENT" + dark-grey "NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY" + orange "NEW EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY" all present in plan view | Drawing-area takeoff needed to confirm 212 m² aggregates these three new-concrete categories. Plausible. Tier-2 confirm post-RFI #1 response. |
| 3 | FF/4L | Broom finish | 212 m² | R32 + R33 implied (all NEW PAVEMENT areas to broom finish) | match |
| 4 | FF/4M | Cure concrete | 212 m² | R32 + R33 implied | match — apply curing per §1 (polythene + hessian) standard |
| 5 | FF/4N | Pour-through dowel EXJ — 37 m (Connolly EXJ, R12 × 300 galv dowels @ 350 c/c) | 37 m | R50 cites City of Ryde CIV.11 (KJ @ 6.0 m max) — at 212 m² with ~7 m widths gives ~30 m kerb length — 37 m plausible | match (within ~20% — DA-stage qty volatility) |
| 6 | FF/4Q | 10 × 100 mm ableflex joint inc. sealant | 18 m | R32 + R33 — abuts kerb / wall at building tie-ins, traffic islands | plausible — drawing area inspection at Phase 4 |
| 7 | FF/4R | Formwork to slab edge 100 mm high | 281 m | Implied perimeter formwork around all NEW PAVEMENT + NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY + NEW EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY areas | plausible |
| 8 | FF/4T | SL72 mesh in 100 mm slabs | 212 m² | R50 detail shows 125 mm slab + SL72 (NOT 100 mm) | **CONFLICT** — RFQ "100 mm thick" is likely typo for 125 mm. RFI candidate #2 ($ minor) |
| 9 | FF/5H | S32 concrete 200 mm crossovers — 16 m³ / 77 m² | 77 m² | R32 + R33 dark-grey "NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY" + heavy-duty footway crossing (CIV.4.4) | match in principle; CIV.4.4 spec confirms heavy-duty — S32 200 mm plausible. Tier-2 confirm by reading CIV.4.4 spec via City of Ryde standards. |
| 10 | FF/5L | 40 mm deep soft-cut joint w/ Emerseal Roadseal | 12 m | CIV.11 cited — TJ @ 2.0 m c/c → for 77 m² × ~5 m widths gives ~15 m — 12 m plausible | match |
| 11 | FF/5M | 10 × 180 mm ableflex @ layback kerb / pavement junction | 53 m | R32 + R33 — perimeter of NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY adjoining kerb + footpath | plausible |
| 12 | FF/5Q | SL82 mesh in 200 mm slabs | 153 m² | R50 detail not shown for crossover; SL82 is typical for 200 mm S32 crossovers per City of Ryde CIV.4.4 — plausible | match |
| 13 | FF/6B + FF/6C | Granite paving + concrete edge | 46 m² + 6 m | NOT yet confirmed — Architectural Combined.pdf needed (tier-2 read pending) | **OPEN** — pending Architectural read in Phase 4. Per Rocky override #1: concrete base IN, granite INSTALL OUT |

## RFI candidates ($-impact priority, descending)

| # | Question | Drawing/RFQ source | $-impact | Priority |
|---|----------|--------------------|----------|----------|
| 1 | **What is "Road Pavement" in RFQ Section 1?** Does FF/4 (212 m² @ 125 mm N25) map to (a) blue NEW PAVEMENT + dark-grey NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY + orange NEW EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY combined, or (b) one subset only? Drawing R50 ASPHALT "Road Pavement Detail" creates terminology confusion. Mill-and-resheet asphalt is HC/asphalt subbie. | R32 + R33 + R50 | $30–80 k swing | **P1** |
| 2 | **Butterfly grate pit (R35) is NOT in RFQ BoQ.** Is the pit (formwork + steel-fix + concrete + cure) in LFCS scope or HC scope? If LFCS, add line. Pit count: 1 visible on R33 — any others on R10/R11/R12? | R32 + R33 + R35 | $3–6 k per pit (×N pits) | **P1** |
| 3 | **FF/4E "200 mm lean-mix concrete base" — clarify spec.** R50 pedestrian slab detail shows 50 mm DGB20 subbase. RFQ may be mis-titled (200 mm lean mix is for asphalt detail, not LFCS scope). | R50 vs RFQ FF/4E | $8–15 k swing (245 m² × ~$60/m² spec difference) | **P1** |
| 4 | **FF/4T mesh thickness — 100 mm or 125 mm?** RFQ says "SL72 mesh in 100mm thick slabs" but R50 pedestrian slab detail is 125 mm. Likely TCE BoQ typo. | R50 vs RFQ FF/4T | $200–400 (spacer + steel-fix labour) | P3 |
| 5 | **Granite paving FF/6B — concrete-base extent.** Per Rocky override #1: concrete base IN, granite install OUT. Need Architectural drawing read to confirm m² of concrete base. RFQ 46 m² granite — confirm m² concrete-base = same or larger. | Architectural Combined (tier-2 not read) | $4–8 k swing | P2 |
| 6 | **CIV-SF.2.2 stainless-steel removable bollard — cast-in base in LFCS scope?** | R33 | $500–1,500 per bollard | P3 |
| 7 | **Sandstone log OR TfNSW Type F jersey kerb barrier — which option, who supplies?** Both options are non-LFCS supply; LFCS may place/secure only. | R33 | $0–1,500 (place-only labour if LFCS) | P3 |
| 8 | **Red-markup items on R33** (1.5 m bollard spacing + "Emergency Vehicles Only" signpost) — are these LFCS instructions or HC-internal markup? | R33 | Likely $0 (signage subbie); $0 if HC-internal | P3 |
| 9 | **Existing KIP inlet pit → Class 'E' butterfly grate conversion** (callout on R32) — separate from R35 pit, or same? Who scope? | R32 + R35 | $500–2 k if LFCS | P3 |
| 10 | **Programme** — RFQ silent. Default Mon–Fri 7:00–15:30. Confirm with TCE — does it allow night-work loadings or weekend? | RFQ silent | $0 baseline; could trigger night-rate loading if shift work | P2 |

## Exclusion candidates (Tier 3 — DETAILED list per 2629 canonical structure)

Per 2629 Erskine Park canonical (3-tier, ~43 items); 2629 Tier 1 (1–10) standard always-out + Tier 2 (11–28) prelims HC-supply boundary unchanged. Tier 3 detailed exclusions specific to 2632:

| # | Exclusion | Source / reason |
|---|-----------|-----------------|
| 29 | All linemarking + thermoplastic + grit-blast removal (TfNSW R145) | R41 + R42 |
| 30 | Pedestrian fencing (TfNSW R0800-15) | R31 Note 4 |
| 31 | Asphalt mill-and-resheet of College St half-road (90 mm AC14 + 200 mm lean mix) | R32 + R42 + R50 |
| 32 | Service relocation + locating + survey of existing services (water, gas, comms, sewer, electricity overhead) | R31 Note 3 + R35 services legend |
| 33 | Topsoil + turf 100 mm between kerb and property boundary | R31 Note 7 |
| 34 | Tree removal + arborist | R33 |
| 35 | Stainless-steel removable bollard supply (CIV-SF.2.2); LFCS cast-in base only if separately scoped (see RFI #6) | R33 |
| 36 | Sandstone log barrier supply (2 m × 0.5 m × 0.5 m); LFCS place-only if directed (see RFI #7) | R33 |
| 37 | TfNSW Type F jersey kerb barrier supply (precast — TCE supply); LFCS place-only if directed | R33 |
| 38 | Signage supply + install (school zone, R5-400, emergency vehicles, no stopping, give way) | R41 + R42 + R33 markup |
| 39 | Stormwater pipe cut, reconnection, IL set-out (specialist drainage) | R35 |
| 40 | Tree-root pedestrian-slab piers (atypical structural element on R50 detail) | R50 |
| 41 | Granite paving install (stonemason subbie); LFCS concrete base + concrete edge only (per Rocky override #1) | RFQ FF/6B + landscape package |
| 42 | Earthworks + cut-and-fill + rock-batter prep | Geotech package + assumptions row 13 |
| 43 | Adverse weather (priced as variation at day-labour rates per 2629 #37 standard) | Standing context Q-5 / row 5 |

## Confidence + risk callouts

**Confidence: medium-high (75%)** that tier-1 vision pass + RFQ cross-check captures the bulk of pricing risk. Three structural unknowns remain:

1. **RFI #1 (Road Pavement scope mapping)** — single biggest variance risk; $30–80 k swing. Must resolve before sanity-check.
2. **Butterfly grate pit count** — tier-2 R10/R11/R12 services read may reveal additional pits ($3–6 k each).
3. **Architectural granite-base extent** — confirm m² concrete-base for FF/6B before sanity-check; $4–8 k swing.

**Tier-2 reads (deferred, list for Phase 4 sanity-check):**
- Architectural Combined.pdf — granite-base m² + setout
- Geotechnical-Assessment.pdf — confirm subgrade-prep boundary
- Rock-Batter-Inspection-Report.pdf — confirm earthworks sequence ahead of LFCS mobilisation
- Civil R10 / R11 / R12 — services + butterfly-grate-pit count
- Civil Combined alt-rev PDFs (38 / 65 MB) — confirm canonical rev (per 00-brief.md Risk #4)

**No blind-comparison active** for 2632 (per blind-comparison-workflow.md — no `comparator_artefact_paths` set; no methodology row quarantine; no Blind Comparison Session row).

---

## Drawing-Index changelog (append-only)

- 2026-05-13 — initial write — tier-1 vision pass (7/22 PDFs read). Drawing-Index in `_Internal/`-equivalent confidentiality posture (per §3.2; will be sanitised + filtered out of any external artefact at Phase 6).