Three words get intern architects into trouble on the ExAC: general review, inspection, and supervision. They sound like ways of describing the same thing, an architect walking a construction site. They are not. One is the service you provide, one is a service you never provide, and one belongs entirely to the contractor. Mixing them up costs marks on Section 4, and in practice it can hand you a standard of care you never agreed to carry.
This guide sorts out general review vs inspection vs supervision using the actual Canadian sources: the RAIC Canadian Handbook of Practice, Chapter 6.6, CCDC 2, and the provincial rules that turn field review into a legal obligation. If you have already worked through our site instructions and change management guide, this is the site visit that sets that whole paper trail in motion.
The three words, sorted
Start with the distinction the exam is really testing. The three terms describe three different levels of involvement, and only one of them is yours.
| Term | Who does it | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Supervision | The contractor | Overseeing the workers and the day to day activities on site. Directing means, methods, and sequence. |
| Inspection | Not the architect | A close, detailed examination of the work. A level of service beyond what an architect undertakes. |
| General review (field review) | The architect | Periodic site visits at appropriate intervals to determine whether the work is in general conformity with the contract documents. |
CHOP 6.6 is blunt about the first two. Supervision means overseeing the construction work, which is the contractor's responsibility, not the architect's. Inspection means a close examination of construction, and that too is beyond the architect's role. The takeaway the exam wants: you review, you do not inspect or supervise, and you keep those two words out of your reports and your agreements.
What general review actually means under CCDC 2
General review is not a vibe. It has a definition, and it comes from the construction contract.
Under CCDC 2, General Condition 2.2, Role of the Consultant, the consultant visits the Place of the Work at intervals appropriate to the progress of construction to become familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work is in general conformity with the contract documents. That phrase, general conformity, is doing a lot of work. It is the standard, and it is deliberately not perfect conformity.
Appendix A of CHOP sharpens it further. Field review is intermittent, neither constant nor comprehensive. It is based on a systematic, random sampling of the work, and the architect is entitled to rely on the contractor's consistency for the quality of the work. You are not checking every brick. You are sampling enough, at the right moments, to form a professional judgment.
One terminology note that trips people up: field review and general review mean the same thing. Different parts of Canada favour different words, and they carry the same meaning and force in law. CCDC 2 uses them together with a slash for exactly that reason. If a question treats them as two different services, that is the trap.
Why the wording matters more than it looks
Here is where the exam distinction becomes a practice problem.
When you write "inspected" or "supervised" in a site report, or let those words sit in a client agreement, you are describing a higher level of service than you actually performed. If something goes wrong later, that language can be used to hold you to a standard you never undertook to meet. This is why CHOP tells you to review rather than inspect or supervise in all documentation, and why our own guide flags "inspect" and "supervise" as the two words to avoid. It is not pedantry. It is your liability envelope.
The boundaries run deeper than vocabulary. The architect is not responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, and is not responsible for construction safety. Those belong to the contractor. You should understand site safety and practise due diligence, and if you see something unsafe you report it immediately to the contractor and owner and record it. But you never take ownership of it.
Timing is the other half of the liability picture. Some work cannot be corrected without tearing it out. Masonry that has cured, concrete that has been placed, insulation buried behind drywall. Canadian courts have held architects responsible where critical work was covered over before there was any chance to review it, especially where the fault related to safety and could have been caught easily. General review being intermittent does not excuse you from being on site at the moments that matter.
Field review in practice: when you go, what you look for
Because you cannot be everywhere, the skill is choosing when. CHOP 6.6 gives a clear rhythm.
More visits cluster at start up and at close out, with the middle of the job lighter. Structural review front loads early; mechanical and electrical review intensifies near completion. Vary the day and time so the contractor cannot schedule sensitive work around a predictable routine.
The moments that matter most are the ones just before work gets covered up, because after that, review is impossible without demolition. Before the following are concealed, get on site:
- insulation and vapour barriers
- fireproofing and firestopping
- blocking and furring
- electrical and mechanical services in walls and ceilings
- reinforcing steel and inserts before concrete placement
Firestopping is a good example of why this sequencing is not optional. Once a ceiling closes up, you cannot confirm a firestop system was installed to the tested assembly, and that failure is invisible until it matters most. It is the same reason the exam wants you to keep fire separations and fire resistance ratings straight: the code cares about the system actually being built, not the one drawn.
Weather is another trigger. After a serious storm or a sudden temperature swing, you review for damage: undermined footings, frozen concrete or mortar, roofing torn by wind.
Every visit produces a field review report. It records who attended, the date, time, and weather, the percentage of work complete by trade, progress against the contractor's schedule, questions raised, determinations you made, and outstanding items. That report is your project history and, if a claim ever lands, your evidence. When a review turns up a problem, that is usually what triggers a supplemental instruction, an RFI response, or a proposed change, which is where the change management hierarchy picks up.
The Canadian layer: general review and Letters of Assurance
This is where Canadian practice pulls away from the American vocabulary, and where our sources beat the US prep material. In the United States the equivalent service is usually called construction observation or field observation, and it is largely a matter between the architect and the owner under the contract.
In Canada, general review is also a regulatory obligation you cannot contract away. CHOP 6.6 states that regardless of the delivery method, the architect has regulatory responsibilities to determine general conformity with the contract documents that cannot be removed by contract. The client can try to shrink your role. The regulator's floor stays put.
Several provinces formalize this through certification. In British Columbia, the Building Code requires Letters of Assurance for Part 3 and some Part 9 buildings. The registered professional signs a Schedule B, "Assurance of Professional Design and Commitment for Field Review," before construction starts, and a Schedule C-B on completion confirming the field reviews were done. Ontario uses the language of general review and a commitment to general review under its Building Code. The names differ by province, but the idea is identical: a licensed professional puts their seal behind the promise that field review is actually happening.
That regulatory weight is exactly why the terminology is not casual. A Letter of Assurance is a legal accountability document. Signing one commits you, personally, to field review, not inspection and not supervision.
How this shows up on the ExAC
Section 4 loves this distinction because it separates candidates who memorized tasks from candidates who understand the architect's role. For the full map of where contract administration sits across the exam, see our ExAC sections breakdown.
Watch for the bait. A well written distractor will offer verbs that sound responsible but describe the wrong service: inspect, supervise, approve, guarantee, certify perfection. The defensible answer almost always centres on review and general conformity. If an option makes the architect responsible for safety, means and methods, or catching every defect, it is wrong by definition.
It is also worth remembering this is not only exam theory. The RAIC Internship in Architecture Program lists field review among your required experience: visiting the job site, observing work in place, and preparing field reports. You will log these hours on the way to licensure, so the exam is testing something you are meant to do for real.
Key takeaways
- General review is your service. Inspection and supervision are not. You review for general conformity; the contractor supervises; inspection is a closer service you do not provide.
- Field review and general review are the same thing. Regional wording, identical meaning and legal force.
- The words carry liability. Writing "inspect" or "supervise" can bind you to a standard you never agreed to. Review before work is covered up, because you cannot review what you cannot see.
- In Canada it is also regulatory. Letters of Assurance and commitments to general review make field review a legal obligation you cannot sign away.
Field review is one theme in a Section 4 that also covers bidding, CCDC contracts, changes, and close out. The ExAC Study Guide walks through all of it, with Theme 11 dedicated to the architect's role and field review and 500 plus scenario questions built to train the exact judgment the exam rewards.
Source
This article draws on the RAIC Canadian Handbook of Practice, Chapter 6.6 and Appendix A; CCDC 2, GC 2.2; the RAIC Internship in Architecture Program Manual; Ontario Association of Architects Practice Tip PT.05; and the British Columbia Building Code Letters of Assurance.