# Methodology: egress-window permit packet document comparison Study ID: PP-2026-10-14-EGRESS-01 Version: 1.0, publication edition Collection and publication review: October 14, 2026, UTC ## Question and scope What information do selected official local documents request for residential window replacements, modified window openings and related remodeling plans? This purposive, nonrandom comparison concerns submission information. It is not a complete egress-window checklist or a code-compliance analysis. Wheaton's architectural-plan instructions apply when opening sizes change. Westmont's sheet covers inserts and separately identifies a professional-design requirement for load-affecting changes. Indianapolis contributes the Remodel block and relevant Common Additional Details from its broader structural-permit checklist. These are different review scopes, not interchangeable application paths. ## Published sample - 13 selected instruction records across three municipalities in two states - Wheaton, Illinois: six records - Westmont, Illinois: three records - Indianapolis, Indiana: four records - Three row-bearing official sources and one official context page - No individual applications, correction letters, inspection records, approvals, denials or review-time observations A row is one selected instruction or closely related group of fields, with its scope preserved. Related plan and elevation views may share one row. Counts describe editorial extraction choices; they do not measure relative difficulty, workload, strictness or rejection risk. Unselected instructions are not treated as absent from local requirements. ## Publication scope change The working candidate set contained 18 records, including five from Oak Creek, Wisconsin. That undated official page was available only through a previously crawled web representation; a direct request returned HTTP 403. A publication recheck did not establish currently accessible official corroboration of the five exact instructions. All five Oak Creek records were excluded from the published dataset and article claims. The published scope is 13 records, three municipalities and two states. No access controls were bypassed. Original row IDs were preserved, so their sequence intentionally has gaps. ## Collection and verification 1. Selected official municipal guidance with explicit submission content. Contractor articles, generic code summaries and applicant-specific records were excluded from the evidence dataset. 2. Recorded each source's scope, stated revision date and retrieval date. Search-engine crawl/publication dates were not substituted for document revisions. 3. Extracted short paraphrases, retaining conditional wording and a section/item or one-based PDF page locator. 4. Checked the Westmont sheet's link from its current permit page. Used its printed July 2024 footer rather than an inconsistent PDF title. 5. Followed the Indianapolis official checklist page's published content to its currently linked February 10, 2025 PDF. Excluded a search-discovered November 2019 version from the dataset. The landing page's older prose was not substituted for the newer linked checklist. 6. Cross-checked selected instructions against source text and the Indianapolis PDF page images. Original captures and hashes were retained during collection where available. Public source records retain URLs and hashes without private workspace paths. 7. Checked unique row IDs, required fields, source relationships, evidence categories, sample totals and CSV/JSON equivalence. No applicant identities, project addresses, permit IDs or personal contact details were collected. No city was contacted. Official blank forms were used only as policy documents. ## Dates and source limitations Dated row-bearing sources range from July 2024 through September 1, 2026. These are document revision dates, not construction dates, legal effective dates or observed review periods. All 13 retained rows have a stated source date. The contextual Westmont permit page has no overall revision date. Westmont's current permitting page identifies later ordinance amendments and warns that zoning references in its guides may be outdated. This study uses document requests and scope language from the linked sheet, not its numerical code, fee or zoning limits. An official page or currently linked document demonstrates published guidance; it does not independently verify every statement of controlling law. The Indianapolis checklist is broader remodeling guidance, not a dedicated window-well handout. Window-only projects require confirmation of the applicable path. A capture hash verifies retained bytes, not legal validity or applicability to a property. ## Evidence categories and missingness Every row is categorized as published_submission_requirement. All 13 outcome fields are unknown_not_collected. Every observed_correction and observed_outcome value is null in JSON and empty in CSV. This means cases were not collected; it does not mean no corrections occur in practice. ## Data dictionary - observation_id: stable research row ID, never a permit or applicant ID - jurisdiction / state: municipality and state represented by the source - project_review_type: source's project or review category - scope_condition: qualification determining when an instruction applies - topic: researcher-assigned grouping, with no frequency or severity meaning - reviewer_check_or_documented_issue: paraphrase of a published instruction; the field name does not imply an actual case issue - evidence_category: published_submission_requirement - source_id: key into sources.json and the JSON source registry - source_url / source_document: official URL and title - source_locator: section/item and one-based PDF page where applicable - source_version_date / source_date_precision: stated revision and its precision - retrieval_date: original collection date in UTC - outcome_status_known: unknown_not_collected - observed_correction / observed_outcome: null, because no cases were collected - notes: record-specific limitations ## Reuse and updates Use these records to locate instructions, organize intake or prepare questions. They cannot estimate review time, rejection frequency, avoidable cost, causation or approval probability. They do not replace project-specific surveying, engineering, architectural design or code review. Before reuse, inspect each official source and its landing page. Preserve the original revision when making a new version; a new retrieval date is not a new document revision. Any future case-level correction or outcome evidence should use a separate category and appropriate privacy handling.