Arc Flash FilesReview · coordination
Coordination & Selectivity Review
Flags what needs verification in your protection settings — never a selectivity verdict.
Reviews declared device settings and narratives for completeness and overlap risk. Does not independently plot or interpret time-current curves, and does not render a selectivity pass/fail — see the mandatory limitation language in every report.
What this product is for
Most coordination studies fail review not on the curves but on the table underneath them — a pickup with no time band, a device whose frame and trip unit are not identified, a setting sheet that does not say which operating configuration it applies to, an interrupting rating that was never stated. Those gaps are what make a study impossible to check, and they are invisible until someone tries. This product reviews the declared settings and the written narrative for completeness, internal consistency, ratings, and pairs that require verification. It draws a hard line at the curves: it does not plot them, does not interpret them, and renders no selectivity verdict of any kind. Every overlap finding is phrased as work for the Engineer of Record to do against manufacturer curve data — never as a determination that coordination fails.
What the 31-point checklist covers
31 discrete checks across 6 areas. Applies to: Protective device settings tables, coordination study narratives, TCC plot exports.
- Settings table completeness
- Overlap and verification flags
- Device ratings
- Code-driven coordination requirements
- System configuration and operating states
- Study documentation
Grounded in an owner-authored review checklist. Every finding includes its source page and, where a code citation applies, the section it is based on — never from memory.
What this explicitly does not do
- Plotting or interpreting time-current curves
- Determining that coordination succeeds or fails
- Recommending settings
- Certifying selective coordination for code compliance
These are structural limits on the product, not a description of effort. Absence of a finding is never evidence of compliance.
A finding in this product's format
Device pair requires verification against manufacturer curve data
The declared settings for this upstream/downstream pair place their instantaneous and short-time regions in a range where overlap is possible at the stated available fault current. The submitted material does not include curve data sufficient to resolve it. This is a flag for verification by the Engineer of Record against the manufacturer’s published curves, not a determination that coordination fails.
Illustrative and redacted. Not real customer data. See full sample reports →
Turnaround
- Automated release: Typically 1 business day, plus review time.
What you'll upload
- Device settings table (PDF or XLSX) (required)
Upload the device settings table. Curve images alone cannot be reliably reviewed and will be flagged as insufficient.
- TCC plot export (optional PDF) (optional)
If this document needs more than a preliminary screening, the same firm offers a stamped engineering review by a licensed P.E.(opens in a new tab, external site) directly. That work is engaged separately from this Service — buying a review here does not create that engagement.
Coordination & Selectivity Review — common questions
- Will this tell me whether my system is selectively coordinated?
- No. That limitation is structural, not stylistic — the engine is prevented in code from emitting any finding that concludes coordination succeeds, fails, or is achieved, and mandatory limitation language appears on every report saying so. Curves are not independently plotted or interpreted. What you get is a list of what is missing, inconsistent, or in need of verification.
- Then what is it actually for?
- For finding, in a day rather than a week, everything about a settings package that would stall a review: incomplete device data, unstated operating configurations, ratings that were never declared, narrative that contradicts the table, and device pairs a reviewer will want curve evidence for. It is the pass you would want a second engineer to make before the study goes out.
- What do I upload?
- The protective device settings table is the primary document — that is what gets read page by page. Coordination study narratives and TCC plot exports can be submitted alongside it and are read as supporting context.
- Who wrote the checklist this runs against?
- Jay R. Prigmore II, Ph.D., P.E. — a Ph.D. electrical power engineer and voting member of the IEEE 1584 working group. The checklist is original prose; no NFPA 70, IEEE 242, or manufacturer text is reproduced in it, and no clause is cited unless its text appears in a document you supplied.
- Can this satisfy a selective coordination requirement in the code?
- No. Certifying selective coordination for code compliance is explicitly out of scope. This is an automated preliminary screening, not a stamped deliverable and not a compliance determination.