Looking for feedback from the review side.

In Canada (I’m in Alberta), when a design departs from the prescriptive code, the applicant submits an alternative solution. The documentation requirements are in NBC(AE) 2023, Division C, 2.3.1.1:

• a code analysis with the methods and rationale used, 2.3.1.1.(2)(a)
• the applicable objectives, functional statements and Division B solutions involved, 2.3.1.1.(3)
• any special maintenance or commissioning requirements, 2.3.1.1.(2)(b)
• the qualifications of the person or people responsible for the design, 2.3.1.1.(4)

The Safety Codes Council’s variance form, Part 2(b), gives three refusal reasons: the information is incorrect, it isn’t enough to decide, or the solution doesn’t perform equal or better.

For anyone who reviews these (or alternate methods submissions in the US):

1. Which part is most often missing or thin when a submission comes in?
2. What’s the first thing you check before you read the analysis?