Why BOM-to-Drawing Mismatches Happen and How AI Can Fix It

BOMs sit at the center of every manufactured product. They define what gets built, sourced, quoted and assembled. Yet despite their importance, BOM verification during drawing reviews remains one of the most error-prone, manual and frustrating parts of the engineering process.

Talk to experienced engineers, and you’ll hear a familiar story: BOM mismatches slip through reviews, drawings go out with incorrect revisions, suppliers build to the wrong parts, and teams pay for it downstream in delays, rework, and scrap. Even with modern CAD and PLM systems in place, BOM errors remain stubbornly common.

So why does this keep happening, and what can AI do about it?

This article breaks down:

1. The importance of BOMs from engineering to manufacturing
2. How and why BOM mismatches happen
3. How AI agents can prevent BOM mismatches that their downstream effects

Where BOMs Fit in Product Development

At a high level, a BOM defines every component required to build an assembly: part numbers, quantities, revisions, and sourcing details. But BOMs don’t start life fully formed.

Early in development, during concept or early validation phases, BOMs are often rough and incomplete. Engineers may know they’ll use “M5 fasteners” but not the exact length, coating, or supplier. As the design matures through design validation (DV) and process validation (PV), BOMs become more refined and eventually serve as the single source of truth for manufacturing and sourcing decisions.

By the time drawings are released for quotation or production, BOM accuracy is no longer optional. At that stage:

• Suppliers rely on BOMs to quote and build parts
• Manufacturing depends on BOMs for repeatability
• Quality teams assume BOMs match released drawings exactly

Any mismatch between the BOM and the drawing at this point introduces real business risk.
‍

Why BOM Verification during Drawing Reviews is Important

Drawing reviews are the final gate before designs leave engineering and enter the wider world of suppliers, manufacturers, and production lines. If BOM errors exist at this stage, they tend to escape into downstream processes where they are far more expensive to fix.

The consequences of BOM mismatches include:

• Incorrect quotes due to missing or wrong quantities
• Order delays while suppliers request clarification on conflicting revisions
• Rework or scrap when parts are built to outdated drawings
• Cost overruns that compound at production scale

As one manufacturing engineer put it, catching a BOM mismatch late in the process is “a punch in the gut,” especially when multiple reviewers have already signed off on the design.

Despite PLM systems existing specifically to manage lifecycle complexity, BOM mismatches still occur on nearly every project at some point.

How BOM Mismatches Happen

If BOM accuracy is so important, why do mismatches happen? The answer lies in the messy reality of engineering workflows.

1. Multiple “Sources of Truth”

In many organizations, BOMs exist in more than one place:

• A BOM table on the drawing
• A BOM in the PLM system
• A CAD BOM that may or may not get checked back into PLM
• Sometimes even separate manufacturing BOMs

When changes are made in PLM, like sourcing updates or revision changes, those updates don’t always flow back into CAD automatically. CAD pushes data into PLM, but the reverse isn’t guaranteed. If the drawing isn’t manually updated, the BOM on the print quickly becomes outdated.

2. Manual, Error-Prone Updates

Even within CAD, BOM tables often require manual cleanup. Common issues include:

• CAD model filenames not matching internal part numbers (e.g., McMaster-Carr downloads vs part numbers)
• Revision columns in BOM tables needing manual entry
• Quantities that don’t update cleanly across assemblies

Each manual step creates an opportunity for mismatch, especially when designs evolve quickly across multiple assemblies.

3. Subcomponent Changes Ripple Everywhere

Changing a single subcomponent can require updates across multiple top-level assemblies. While PLM systems offer “where-used” tools, updating every affected drawing is time-consuming. Under schedule pressure, those updates sometimes don’t happen, leaving revision mismatches scattered across released prints

4. Drawings Escaping “Into the Wild”

Engineers frequently export PDFs for quick reviews, supplier questions, or internal checks, sometimes before formal PLM check-in. Once those files circulate, outdated BOMs and drawings can persist long after revisions have changed.

5. A 100% Human Verification Process

Ultimately, BOM verification today relies almost entirely on human reviewers. Engineers are expected to visually cross-check BOM tables, callouts, bubbles, and part references, across multiple pages and revisions. It’s tedious, time-consuming, and easy to miss under real-world constraints.
‍

Why Traditional Tools Haven’t Solved the Problem

PLM systems are essential, but they weren’t designed to think like engineers during drawing reviews. They manage data states, revisions, and approvals, but they don’t visually reason about drawings the way humans do.

As a result:

• PLM enforces process, not understanding
• CAD generates BOMs, but doesn’t verify intent
• Reviewers are left to bridge the gap manually

That gap is exactly where errors hide.

How AI Agents Improve BOM Verification

BOM verification has remained stubbornly manual not because engineers don’t care, but because the problem lives in the gaps between systems. CAD knows geometry. PLM knows structure and revisions. Humans are left to mentally reconcile the two during drawing reviews.

This is exactly the kind of problem AI agents are well suited to solve.

AI agents are purpose-built systems designed to perform narrow, repeatable checks inside complex workflows. Instead of replacing engineers, they act as tireless assistants: scanning documents, cross-referencing information, and flagging inconsistencies long before they turn into costly downstream issues.

For BOM verification, an AI agent can:

• Read and interpret drawing packages the way a reviewer does
• Compare BOM tables, callouts, and visual geometry
• Identify mismatches, omissions, and inconsistencies at scale
• Do it every time, without fatigue or schedule pressure

In other words, AI agents don’t “manage” BOMs, they verify intent, which is where traditional tools fall short.

‍

AutoReview: An AI Agent for BOM Verification

AutoReview is one example of an AI agent applied directly to drawing review.

Rather than waiting for senior engineers or manufacturing to catch issues (often too late), AutoReview performs a first-pass peer check on drawings. It scans entire drawing packages and automatically flags potential BOM-related problems that are easy to miss during manual reviews.

Examples include:

• BOM items that don’t match the geometry they reference
• Duplicate BOM bubbles pointing to different components
• Missing or blank BOM fields
• Visual inconsistencies between callouts and actual parts

In one real example, the AI agent flagged a BOM line item labeled as a housing that visually pointed to fasteners: revealing a mismatch that would otherwise require careful, line-by-line human inspection to catch.

Importantly, AutoReview doesn’t make release decisions. It surfaces risk.

Engineers remain in control, but instead of spending time hunting for clerical or consistency errors, they can focus on validating real design intent, tradeoffs, and manufacturability concerns. The result is less noise, fewer late surprises, and far less frustration for the people reviewing drawings at the end of the process.

‍

‍

Why AI Agents Need the Right Environment to Work

AI agents are powerful, but only when they operate inside systems that understand engineering context.

BOM verification isn’t just about recognizing text in a table. It requires understanding how drawings, geometry, revisions, and feedback connect across a review process. Without that context, even the best AI will struggle to be useful.

This is where platforms like CoLab come into play.

CoLab provides the collaborative layer where drawings, models, comments, and review decisions live together. That environment gives AI agents the context they need to be effective—without forcing teams to abandon their existing CAD or PLM systems.

For BOM verification specifically, that context enables a few key things.

‍

1. AI Agents Operating in the Flow of Work

Instead of running as a disconnected checker, an AI agent like AutoReview operates directly inside the drawing review process. Engineers upload their drawings, run the agent, and see annotated feedback tied to specific views and geometry, where they’re already working.

2. Verification That Gets Smarter Over Time

Every BOM issue flagged, discussed, and resolved during a review feeds your organization’s knowledge model. In a collaborative system, that feedback doesn’t disappear into email threads or meeting notes. It becomes structured, reusable context for AI to learn from.

Over time, AI agents can learn how your organization defines “good” BOM hygiene, capturing institutional knowledge that previously lived only in experienced engineers’ heads.

3. Fewer Bottlenecks at the End of the Process

Manufacturing and quality engineers are often the last line of defense, and the most frustrated when BOM mismatches surface late. By using AI agents to catch issues earlier, reviews reach those high-value contributors in a cleaner state. That means fewer late-cycle resets, fewer delays, and better use of expert time.

‍4. From Manual Checking to Trust-but-Verify

Even seasoned engineers agree that BOM verification will never be fully hands-off. There will always be judgment calls and edge cases.

But AI agents fundamentally change the balance. Instead of relying on humans to catch everything, teams move to a trust-but-verify model: where AI does the exhaustive checking, and humans confirm what matters most.

‍

‍

BOM Verification: From Pain Point to Competitive Advantage

BOM mismatches aren’t just a technical nuisance. They’re a systemic inefficiency that drains engineering time, delays programs, and increases cost of poor quality.

By combining:

• AutoReview as an AI agent that catches BOM issues early
• CoLab’s collaborative review environment that captures and reuses engineering knowledge
• Integration with existing CAD and PLM systems

Teams can finally turn BOM verification from a recurring pain point into a competitive advantage.

The result isn’t just fewer errors. It’s faster reviews, better decisions, and a development process that scales with complexity instead of breaking under it.

And that’s exactly what modern engineering organizations need.

If you’re ready to see how AutoReview could work for your team, schedule a call with us here.