Practical guide · Updated
One project, several permits: how to group related building records
Use explicit record links, scope and location to group related permits while keeping uncertain matches, inspection status and contractor roles visible.
The record IDs and project below are fictional teaching fixtures. The grouping rules are an editorial research method, not an official project identifier or a verified live dataset.
Decide what you are counting
A permit export contains records. A supplier usually wants to understand projects, accounts or relevant scopes of work. Those units are not interchangeable. A remodel can involve a building record, trade permits and revisions; the same property can also have unrelated work from another time or tenant.
Define a research group before counting: for example, records that the available evidence connects to one specified remodeling scope. Keep the original permit IDs and give the research group a separate internal ID. Grouping should add context, not replace the source records or manufacture a single official project status.
Start with the agency's record relationships
Seattle's project-research guidance describes searching the Services Portal by address or record number and reviewing permit activity, inspection status, related permits and project documents. Start from the exact record and follow available links, then record what kind of relationship the source actually establishes.
A related record is not automatically a second construction project or another permit. Seattle's Street Use portal help, for example, explains that related records may include amendments or invoices. That documentation describes Street Use and Urban Forestry records specifically; it should not be treated as a universal definition for every agency's construction data.
For each candidate, keep the jurisdiction, record ID, record type, original address including unit, description, relevant dates, source URL and observation date. If the source gives a parent or related record ID, preserve it exactly. A normalized address is useful for finding candidates; it is not sufficient evidence to merge them.
Worked example: five rows, one supported group
The fictional scope is an interior remodel of Unit A at Example Property. We observed five records. Only the first three have explicit source relationships connecting them to the same scope. The table deliberately leaves the fifth record unresolved.
| Fictional record | Evidence in the fixture | Research decision |
|---|---|---|
| DEMO-B1 · Building remodel, Unit A | Base scope identifies the Unit A interior remodel | Anchor record for group DEMO-P1 |
| DEMO-E1 · Electrical permit, Unit A | Source explicitly references DEMO-B1 | Include in DEMO-P1; retain electrical status |
| DEMO-R1 · Revision record | Source explicitly identifies a revision to DEMO-B1 | Attach as a revision; do not count as another permit |
| DEMO-M1 · Mechanical permit, Unit B | Same street address; different unit and scope; no linking evidence | Keep separate from DEMO-P1 |
| DEMO-P2 · Plumbing permit, unit missing | Similar issue date and street address; no explicit link | Unresolved candidate; request or locate more evidence |
Write the count so another person can reproduce it
For this fixture, report ‘five source records reviewed; three records linked to one research group, comprising two permit records and one revision; one record kept separate; one candidate unresolved.’ Do not report five projects, or claim that all five rows are one project. No total number of distinct projects is established while the unresolved candidate remains open.
Save the relationship decision, source and reviewer beside each record. If a later document links DEMO-P2 to the remodel, append the new evidence and decision date. Preserve the earlier unresolved state in a revision log so a change in counts can be explained.
Keep dates, values and participant roles separate
Do not add every valuation in a group without checking what each value represents. A trade permit or revision may describe costs already included elsewhere, or may use a different valuation basis. Where the basis cannot be established, show the individual source values without a project total.
An issued trade permit and a finaled building record retain their own meanings and timestamps. Do not let the latest date or most advanced status overwrite the other records. Likewise, an applicant, property owner, general contractor and trade contractor are different roles. A link between permits does not make every named company responsible for all the work or authorized to buy materials.
Use the grouped record for a specific next question
A supplier handoff for DEMO-P1 could read: ‘Unit A interior remodel; building and electrical permits explicitly linked; revision retained; plumbing relationship unresolved. Check the relevant trade participant and purchasing stage before account outreach.’ This conveys why the group matters without claiming a current order or a complete project history.
Before using the worksheet, review the jurisdiction's fields and coverage dates. A missing link may reflect an incomplete export, a separate agency or a document you have not obtained. Keep ‘not found in this source’ distinct from ‘does not exist’. Recheck the primary record when the decision depends on current status.
- Define the project scope and counting unit.
- Preserve every source record and its original identifiers.
- Distinguish explicit links, supporting clues and unresolved candidates.
- Keep amendments and permit records distinct.
- Retain separate statuses, valuations, participant roles and checked dates.