Load Calc Guru Blog

How to Get the Thumbs Up from the Inspector (Without Revisions)

What inspectors actually look for in Manual J and Manual S submittals—and how to avoid the most common reasons HVAC designs get rejected.

November 18, 2025

Most HVAC designs don’t fail inspection because the contractor is careless.

They fail because the documentation leaves too much room for interpretation.

Inspectors are not trying to redesign your system. Their job is to verify that what you’re proposing complies with code, follows ACCA procedures, and can reasonably perform as claimed. If they can’t trace your numbers—or if key steps are missing—they reject it.

This article breaks down what inspectors actually want to see, why rejections happen, and how to submit HVAC designs that get approved the first time.


What Inspectors Are Really Verifying

Contrary to popular belief, inspectors are usually not recalculating your entire load.

They are checking for internal consistency and procedural completeness.

At a high level, they want to answer four questions:

  1. Was the load calculated using an accepted methodology?
  2. Do the inputs make physical sense?
  3. Does the selected equipment actually meet the calculated load?
  4. Can the math be followed without assumptions?

If the answer to any of those is unclear, the submittal stalls.


The Most Common Reasons Designs Get Rejected

1. Manual J Exists, But Manual S Is Missing

This is the fastest way to get a red mark.

A Manual J summary page with a highlighted total load is no longer sufficient. Inspectors increasingly expect to see:

  • A specific model number
  • Verified capacity at design conditions
  • Sensible and latent alignment

If the equipment selection is not tied back to the load calculation, the submittal is incomplete.


2. Design Conditions Aren’t Clearly Stated

Inspectors look for:

  • Outdoor design temperatures (heating and cooling)
  • Indoor setpoints
  • Humidity assumptions

If these values are missing, implied, or buried, the inspector has no reference point to judge whether the loads and capacities make sense.

Clear design conditions remove ambiguity.


3. Inputs Are Rounded, Averaged, or Vague

“Typical wall,” “standard window,” or “average insulation” are red flags.

Inspectors prefer:

  • Explicit assemblies
  • Explicit U-values
  • Explicit areas

Not because they expect perfection, but because vague inputs can’t be verified.


4. Equipment Is Sized on Nameplate, Not Performance

A common failure pattern looks like this:

  • Load: 34,000 BTU/hr
  • Selected unit: “3-ton”
  • No performance verification

Inspectors know that nominal tonnage is based on AHRI conditions. If the design temperature is outside those conditions, capacity must be verified—or the selection is speculative.


5. Duct Losses Are Ignored (When They Matter)

If ducts are in unconditioned space and losses are not accounted for, the effective load is understated.

Inspectors don’t expect perfection here, but they do expect acknowledgment. Ignoring ducts entirely is worse than estimating conservatively.


What a “Clean” Submittal Looks Like

A submittal that passes smoothly usually has the following traits:

  • Manual J and Manual S are both present
  • Design conditions are stated up front
  • Equipment is listed by full model number
  • Sensible and latent loads are shown
  • Oversizing limits are respected
  • Inputs are traceable and itemized

The inspector doesn’t need to agree with every assumption—they just need to be able to follow them.


Why Software Choice Matters

A lot of friction happens because calculations are technically correct but poorly communicated.

When reports:

  • Omit intermediate values
  • Hide assumptions
  • Collapse inputs into summaries

…inspectors are forced to guess how you got there. Guessing leads to rejections.

Tools like Load Calc Guru are designed to surface the exact values inspectors look for: inputs, math, and verification steps printed directly in the report.


The Goal Is Not Perfection—It’s Defensibility

Inspectors are not asking for flawless buildings.

They are asking for defensible designs.

If you can clearly show:

  • How the load was calculated
  • Why the equipment was selected
  • That the numbers line up

You are far more likely to get the thumbs up without revisions, resubmittals, or delays.

Manual J defines the load.
Manual S proves the equipment.
Clear documentation keeps inspectors out of your way.