Skip to content
fig. 01 · features / adac validation

Check the ADAC submission before it reaches the register.

Councils and utilities take as-constructed asset data from developers as an ADAC XML file and the drawings of the same works. Checking that by hand is slow, and it comes out differently depending on who does it. Turn ADAC validation on for a project, and everything loaded into it is checked against that project's standard in three layers.

ADAC XML · DWG geometry · stormwater · sewer · water · roads · open space

ADAC · VALIDATION · THREE LAYERSfig. 01.1
The three layers of ADAC validation in LunrADAC XMLDWG drawingsSUBMISSION · SW / SEWER / WATER / ROADS01Standards validationschema · mandatory attributes · value lists · business rules02Drawing vs data cross-checkDWG geometry reconciled against the XML in MGA coordinates03AI reviewer adviceplain-English guidance · questions to ask · network anomaliesValidated, audit-trailed, handover-readyFINDINGS ATTACH TO THE DOCUMENT AS VALIDATION ERRORS
An ADAC submission is the XML file and the as-constructed drawings of the same works. Both go through three layers before the assets reach the register.
fig. 02 · layer 01 · standards validation

Rules where rules belong.

The first layer is deterministic. Lunr reads the submitted ADAC XML and measures it against the standard configured for the project. Nothing is inferred. A rule either holds or it does not, and the answer is the same every time the file is checked.

  • Validate the file against the ADAC schema the project runs on.
  • Check that every mandatory attribute is supplied, asset class by asset class.
  • Confirm that coded values sit inside the value lists your standard allows.
  • Apply business rules over the data, including invert levels, cover depths, and the relationships between connected assets.

schema · mandatory attributes · value lists · business rules · invert levels · cover depths

ADAC · STANDARDS VALIDATIONfig. 02.1
Deterministic ADAC checks running against submitted XMLSUBMITTED XML<ADAC> <Stormwater> <Pit ID="MH-12"> <Type>Grated</Type> <InvertLevel/> <CoverLevel>18.42</CoverLevel> </Pit> <Pipe ID="P-104" Dia="375">PROJECT STANDARD · RULE CLASSESSchemavalid against the standardMandatory attributesinvert level missing on MH-12Value listsevery value in the allowed setBusiness rulescover depth under the minimum
The deterministic pass: schema, mandatory attributes, value lists, and business rules, all measured against the standard configured for the project.

This is the ADAC XML validation a reviewer would otherwise do by opening the file and working down a checklist. Run in Lunr it takes seconds, it covers the whole submission rather than a sample of it, and it returns the same result for every reviewer on the team. The reviewer starts from a list of findings instead of a blank sheet.

fig. 03 · layer 02 · drawing against data
// the cross-check

The data can be clean and still disagree with the drawing.

An ADAC submission is two things: the XML file, and the as-constructed drawings of the same works. A file can pass every rule in the standard and still contradict the sheet beside it. Lunr reads the DWG geometry through ODA and spatially reconciles it against the XML in real-world MGA coordinates, so the two are compared as they sit on the ground.

  • Find assets drawn but absent from the XML, and assets in the XML that were never drawn.
  • Catch a pit or a node placed away from the position the data records.
  • Compare drawn pipe lengths against the lengths the ADAC attributes carry.
  • Flag attribute conflicts between the drawing and the data, and layers that do not conform to the standard.

ODA DWG read · MGA coordinates · spatial reconciliation · missing assets · position and length · layer conformance

ADAC · GEOMETRY CROSS-CHECK · MGAfig. 03.1
An ADAC network and its drawing geometry overlaid in real-world coordinatesMH-12P-104MGA ZONE 56ADAC XMLDWG geometryposition or length disagreement
The drawing and the data, plotted in the same real-world coordinates. Lunr flags the pit that sits away from its recorded position and the pipe whose drawn length disagrees with the ADAC attribute.

This is the part of as-constructed data validation a checklist cannot reach. Comparing a network of a few hundred assets against its drawing set by eye is the work of a day, and the errors that survive it are exactly the ones that hurt later: the pipe recorded at half its length, the pit that never made it into the file, the manhole sitting twelve metres from where the register says it is. A crew is sent to the wrong place years afterwards, and the cost lands on the council rather than the developer.

fig. 04 · layer 03 · reviewer advice

Judgment where judgment is needed.

The third layer is advisory. Lunr sets an AI reading of the submission alongside the deterministic findings, written for the person doing the review. It explains what a finding likely means, suggests what to put back to the submitter, and points at network-level patterns that no single rule can see.

  • Read each finding in plain English, with the likely cause set out.
  • Take a suggested question to the submitter, ready to go into a correction request.
  • See network-level anomalies the rules miss, such as implausible flow or an abrupt diameter step.
  • Keep the decision with the reviewer, on findings that sit in the same list as the rule findings.

plain-english explanation · question to ask · flow implausibility · diameter steps · advisory only

SW-DR-104 · VALIDATION ERRORSfig. 04.1
Validation errors listed on an ADAC submission in LunrSW-DR-104 · ADAC SUBMISSION3 FINDINGSSchema: mandatory attribute missingPit MH-12 · InvertLevel not suppliedLAYER 01Geometry: length disagreementPipe P-104: drawn length 42 m, ADAC data 24 mLAYER 02AI ADVICE · LAYER 03 · SUPPORTS THE REVIEWERThe drawn length agrees with the pit-to-pitspacing on the sheet, so the ADAC lengthattribute is the likelier error. Ask the submitterto confirm the length before you accept it.
Every finding attaches to the document as a validation error. The advisory entry explains what the deterministic findings likely mean and what to ask the submitter.

The split is deliberate. Rules carry the things a standard states exactly, and they run the same way every time. Advice carries the reading a competent engineer does when the rules come back clean and something still looks wrong. AI advice supports the reviewer's decision. It does not make it, and nothing is approved because the advisory layer had no comment.

fig. 05 · standards as configuration

Your standard, versioned and under approval.

ADAC standards live in Lunr as configuration: versioned records, tied to the projects that use them. Turn ADAC validation on for a project, and content loaded into that project is validated against its standard without anyone having to ask for a check.

  • Hold each ADAC standard as a versioned record against the projects that run on it.
  • Turn validation on per project, and every file loaded is checked on the way in.
  • Maintain standards in the Admin interface, with approval control over each change.
  • Run several ADAC versions and council local amendments side by side, across concurrent projects.

versioned standards · project-tied · admin maintained · approval control · concurrent versions · local amendments

Authorised users maintain the standards themselves, and each change runs through approval control before it takes effect. That matters because a council rarely has one standard in force. A subdivision approved two years ago is delivered under the standard it was approved under, while the next development starts on the current one, and both are open at the same time.

Holding the standard as project-tied configuration keeps those cases apart without a second system and without a reviewer having to remember which rules apply to which development. Local amendments sit in the same place as the base version, so what your council actually enforces is written down, versioned, and visible.

fig. 06 · workflow and the gate

Findings that hold the submission, not an email that gets missed.

Every finding, the advisory ones included, attaches to the document as a validation error. That is the same object Lunr's review workflow already runs on, so an ADAC submission moves through submission, technical review, corrections, and confirmation with its findings attached the whole way.

  • Findings attach to the document as validation errors, in one list per submission.
  • Run the standard review workflow: submission, technical review, corrections, and confirmation.
  • Hold as-constructed status and asset handover until the findings are resolved.
  • Keep the audit trail of who raised, answered, and cleared each finding.

validation errors · technical review · corrections · confirmation · as-constructed gate · full audit trail

See how handover works
ADAC · COMPLIANCE STATUS · GATEfig. 06.1
The ADAC compliance status pipeline and the handover gate in LunrDraftSubmittedCompliantNon-compliantAs-constructed · Handoverlocked untilcompliantcorrectionsSUBMISSION STATUS
Compliance status drives the review workflow. Until the submission is compliant, the gate into as-constructed status and asset handover stays shut.

While findings are open, the submission cannot reach as-constructed status and the assets cannot be handed over. The gate is the compliance state itself, so nothing depends on a reviewer remembering that a correction is still outstanding. Every transition, correction, and resolved finding is written to the audit trail, which means the reason a submission was accepted is still legible years later, to an auditor or to whoever inherits the network.

fig. 07 · reporting and integrations

Compliance you can report on, and data your other systems can use.

Compliance status is reportable by project and by asset class, so you can see which developments are clear, which are held, and where the same finding keeps coming back across submitters.

  • Report compliance by project and by asset class.
  • See findings that recur across submitters, and take them back to the standard or the pre-lodgement advice.
  • Pass validated asset data through to asset management and ERP systems.
  • Pull the drawings behind a map point or a polygon through the Esri connector.

compliance reporting · asset class breakdown · asset management · ERP · Esri ArcGIS · drawing lookup from the map

A finding that clears is only useful if the result reaches the systems that carry the asset afterwards. Validated data flows out through Lunr's integrations to asset management systems of the 1Spatial class and to the ERP that holds the financial record, and Esri ArcGIS layers render live on the map so a reviewer can pick a point or draw a polygon and pull back the drawings for that part of the network.

fig. 08 · questions

Questions councils ask about ADAC validation.

What ADAC is, how the three layers differ, and what ADAC compliance software has to get right.

01
What is ADAC?
ADAC, Asset Design and As Constructed, is the IPWEA-QNT XML specification Australian councils and utilities use to receive as-constructed infrastructure asset data from developers. It covers stormwater, sewer, water, roads, and open space. A submission is an ADAC XML file together with the as-constructed CAD drawings of the same works, and the council reviews both before the assets are accepted into the asset register and the GIS.
02
Which ADAC versions does Lunr support?
Versions are configuration rather than something fixed in the product. An ADAC standard is held in Lunr as a versioned record tied to the projects that use it, so the version a project is measured against is the version you configure for it. That also means several ADAC versions, and council local amendments to them, can be in force across different projects at the same time.
03
Does Lunr read the DWG drawings, or only the XML?
Both. Lunr reads DWG geometry through ODA, so the drawing is read as geometry rather than as a picture. That is what makes the cross-check possible: the drawn network and the ADAC XML are placed in the same real-world MGA coordinates and reconciled against each other, which surfaces assets missing from either side, positions and lengths that disagree, attribute conflicts, and layers that do not conform to the standard.
04
How does the AI advice work, and can it approve a submission?
It cannot approve anything. The advisory layer reads the submission and the deterministic findings, then writes plain-English guidance for the reviewer: what a finding likely means, what to ask the submitter, and network-level anomalies the rules cannot see, such as implausible flow or an abrupt diameter step. The advice attaches to the document alongside the rule findings. AI advice supports the reviewer's decision, and the reviewer makes it.
05
Can we adjust the standards ourselves?
Yes. Authorised users maintain ADAC standards through the Admin interface, with approval control over each change, so an amendment is reviewed before it takes effect. Because standards are versioned and tied to projects, a change to the current standard does not move the goalposts on a project already running against an earlier version.
06
What happens to a non-compliant submission?
Its findings attach to the document as validation errors, and the submission goes back for corrections through the normal review workflow. It cannot reach as-constructed status, and the assets it describes cannot be handed over, until the findings are resolved. Every step is audit-trailed, so the correction history stays with the submission.
fig. 09 · get started

See an ADAC submission checked end to end.

Book a walkthrough and watch Lunr validate an ADAC XML file, reconcile it against the drawing, and hold the handover until the findings are cleared.

10M+ documents under management · Hosted in Australia and the US · SAML · Full audit trail · Export anytime

entity
Lunr Labs Pty Ltd
location
Melbourne AU
workspace
documents.lunr.app
rev
2026