# Give owner-supplied house plans a clear intake path.

An owner-supplied house-plan intake page explains which drawings and lot records you request, how you identify the current revision and who reviews the proposed use. AgAI Labs recommends recording rights questions separately for inspection, publication, adaptation and reuse. Receiving a file starts a review conversation; it does not settle those questions.

## What does bring-your-own-plan mean for your intake page?

Define the operating policy before inviting submissions. Say whether your team considers outside plans, which project types you review and where a buyer starts. If you do not accept owner-supplied plans, state that boundary plainly. A generic custom-building claim should never stand in for an approved intake policy.

Describe the first conversation as a review of the request. A buyer may have a complete drawing set, a purchased plan, a sketch or an image saved for inspiration. Ask which one they have. Keep those descriptions separate so an unexplained attachment does not become a plan your team appears to have accepted.

Place the policy within the [land and lots library](/articles/land-and-lots/). Explain what a buyer should prepare before contacting you. Leave project acceptance, design scope and any construction proposal to their own review steps. The public page should describe your process without committing your team to an unexamined drawing.

## Which information belongs in the intake checklist?

Use a checklist to identify materials and missing questions. Treat every entry as a request for information, not a declaration that the project has passed review. Permit an honest unknown where your policy allows an initial conversation without the complete record. Identify who will request the missing item.

| Intake field | What to request | What stays unresolved |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Plan source | Where the drawings came from and the available source reference | Who can authorize the proposed use |
| Revision | Drawing date, revision label and available sheet index | Whether all files describe the same version |
| Intended use | Initial discussion, project review or another specifically described request | Whether your team will accept that scope |
| Rights information | Available license, agreement or permission record for qualified review | Any interpretation of what the documents permit |
| Requested changes | A separate list of desired room, layout or exterior changes | Whether changes are authorized or technically appropriate |
| Lot context | Parcel reference, land relationship and available site records | Plan fit and missing site findings |
| Response owner | The builder role responsible for the next clarification | Acceptance of the project or a promised decision date |

The [build-on-your-lot inquiry guide](/articles/land-and-lots/build-on-your-lot-marketing/) covers the broader land-owner path. Keep this checklist focused on outside drawings. Ask for documents through your approved intake channel. Explain which records should stay in the controlled project folder.

## How should the page handle rights information?

Use narrow source-backed language. The U.S. Copyright Office describes an architectural work as a building design embodied in a tangible medium. It also distinguishes an architectural work from its technical drawing. See [Circular 41, introduction and the technical-drawing note](https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf). These categories do not determine what a particular agreement permits.

As an intake practice, do not treat possession of a file as permission for every requested use. Ask the buyer for available rights information. Route the agreement and the proposed action to the qualified reviewer. Do not ask the website writer or intake coordinator to decide ownership or interpret a license.

Keep four questions separate in the project record. What information supports permission to inspect the drawings? What supports publication? What supports adaptation? What supports reuse for another project? These are proposed intake categories, not a statement that a particular document grants or withholds any right.

A request to discuss a drawing should never silently become permission to display it in a gallery. Similarly, an approval to publish a specific image should not silently become an internal instruction to revise the plan. Record each proposed use and its review outcome before that action proceeds.

## How do you identify a complete and current plan submission?

Request the drawing index and the revision information the buyer has. Compare the filenames and labels against the stated request. If the buyer sends several versions, ask which version they intend you to consider. Preserve the original labels in the controlled record so reviewers can identify what they received.

Describe completeness as an intake question. Your team can list missing pages or unclear references without declaring the design technically sufficient. The responsible project reviewer decides which materials are needed for the proposed review. Do not publish a universal drawing checklist that claims to settle every project's documentation needs.

Keep requested changes in a separate note. Record “buyer requests a different entry arrangement” rather than renaming the attachment as an accepted revision. When a new file arrives, record which earlier file it replaces, if that relationship is confirmed. Otherwise preserve the uncertainty and request clarification.

## How do outside plans connect to the builder's plan library?

Give outside drawings their own intake status. Do not add them to the public plan catalog merely because a buyer submitted them. Your [plan library pages](/articles/builder-websites/plan-library-pages/) should distinguish current starting designs, historical examples and other accurately labeled categories. An inquiry attachment belongs to none automatically.

Explain the distinction to the buyer without inventing a new offer. A plan-library inquiry asks about a design your team already identifies publicly. An outside-plan inquiry asks you to consider materials supplied for a particular request. Both need an intended project and lot context, but their document and permission questions can differ.

If the buyer selects a library plan while also sending outside inspiration, record which material serves which purpose. Keep the library revision separate from the reference image. Ask the reviewer to approve the public explanation before the website implies that features from unrelated drawings are available options.

## What happens when a submission has missing rights information?

Consider a fictional buyer who sends cropped plan images and asks for a changed layout on land they own. The inquiry includes no plan source, revision label or permission record. This example contains no actual client, designer or project. The builder has not accepted the drawing or agreed to alter it.

A draft clarification could read: “Please identify the plan source and the version you want us to consider. Share the available agreement or permission information through our intake channel. List your requested changes separately. We will route the proposed use for review before agreeing to adaptation, publication or reuse.”

The internal record should say which materials arrived and which questions remain open. Do not mark “rights confirmed” because the buyer says they own the land. Do not remove drawing credits or publish the images while waiting. Keep legal interpretations and contractual permissions with the qualified reviewer.

Once clarification arrives, record its source and the action it supports. If the answer remains unclear, keep that action held and explain the missing decision to the buyer. A useful intake response can describe the next information request without promising a quotation, design revision or project acceptance.

## What sequence should the public intake page describe?

Publish a sequence your team can follow. Define the next responsible role at every [handoff](/process/handoff/). Keep document receipt separate from permission review, project review and proposal work. The list below is a proposed editorial structure. Adjust it to your actual practice before using it as public process copy.

1. **Identify the request.** Record the intended home, parcel and reason for submitting outside drawings.

2. **Inventory the materials.** List the source, revision and available sheets without declaring technical completeness.

3. **Record intended uses.** Separate inspection, publication, adaptation and reuse questions.

4. **Request clarification.** Assign missing source, permission and site-record questions to a responsible role.

5. **Route qualified review.** Keep rights interpretation and project findings with the appropriate reviewers.

6. **Describe the next decision.** Explain what has been reviewed and what remains unresolved.

Use the [lot due-diligence content method](/articles/land-and-lots/lot-due-diligence-content/) for the site-record side of that handoff. A complete drawing submission still needs a separate account of the parcel information. Avoid allowing one intake label to imply that the home and site have both received approval.

## What can you copy into an owner-supplied-plan worksheet?

Copy these prompts into your content brief or intake record. They are original editorial suggestions, not requirements from the Copyright Office. Leave interpretation fields to the qualified reviewer. The public page can explain the categories without exposing private agreements or the drawings supplied by a prospective buyer.

```
Owner-supplied house-plan intake
Builder policy for considering
outside plans:
Buyer request and intended
project:
Parcel reference and relationship
to the land:
Plan source reference:
Drawing date, revision and sheet
index:
Files received and missing
materials:
Requested changes, recorded
separately:
Available agreement or permission
record:
Proposed inspection and
responsible reviewer:
Proposed publication and
responsible reviewer:
Proposed adaptation and
responsible reviewer:
Proposed reuse and responsible
reviewer:
Available lot records and
unresolved questions:
Clarification requested and
response owner:
Reviewed next action and its
limits:
```

Keep the page and inquiry instructions within the [Owned website stage](/process/owned-website/). For constrained parcels, pair the worksheet with the [narrow-lot plan-review page](/articles/land-and-lots/narrow-lot-builder-page-content/). Use the [infill lot marketing guide](/guides/infill-lot-marketing/) when the buyer needs broader site context.

## Which owner-supplied-plan questions need clear answers?

### Does sending a house plan mean the builder has accepted it?

Sending an owner-supplied house plan starts intake under the builder's stated policy. Receipt does not establish project acceptance, technical completeness, site fit or permission for a proposed use. Record those review outcomes separately.

### What should the intake page say about purchased plans?

An owner-supplied-plan intake page should request the source and available agreement for purchased drawings. Keep interpretation of permitted uses with the qualified reviewer rather than assuming the purchase answers every proposed-use question.

### Can a submitted house plan become a public project example?

Keep publication of a submitted house plan as a separate proposed action. Record the intended image and context, request the relevant permission information and hold publication until the responsible reviewer approves that use.

### What if a buyer has only inspiration images?

Label inspiration images as references in the house-plan intake record. Ask for their source and the relationships the buyer wants to discuss. Do not present those images as a complete drawing set or an accepted design.