Direct answer

Can AI maintain a drawing register without replacing CAD?

A practical answer for Singapore AEC firms deciding whether this workflow is worth testing.

Where it helps

Good automation starts where rules and repetition are visible.

These are the parts of the workflow that can usually become a controlled first pass with review gates.

Where it helps

Reading filenames and issue codes

Where it helps

Preparing register update rows

Where it helps

Comparing latest and previous versions

Where it helps

Flagging missing transmittal details

Where it helps

Summarising changes for review

Where it helps

Keeping folder evidence linked

Where it should stay human

Judgement and accountability stay with the firm.

Praeco's pattern is preparation, checking and review support. The accountable professional still decides what goes out.

Stays human

Revision intent

Stays human

Coordination judgement

Stays human

Formal issue approval

Stays human

Client-facing release decisions

What to test first

Start with one current register, one folder of updated drawings, and the email or transmittal that triggered the change.

The first diagnostic is free and focused on proving whether one workflow is a real automation candidate.

What Praeco would need to see

Praeco would need the register, naming rules, sample update emails, and the person who approves issue status.

Client details can be removed or anonymised. The important part is seeing the real inputs, output format and review rule.

Next step

Send one register and update example for a free diagnostic.

Send one repeated workflow and Praeco will check whether it is a good candidate before proposing any build.