"We found 2,000 clashes" sounds alarming. It can also mean very little.
Clash counts depend on model maturity, tolerance settings, linked models, duplicated geometry and how the test was configured. The useful question isn't how many clashes exist — it's which clashes actually matter.
What actually determines priority
Not the same category
Direct geometric intersection vs. a clearance or access issue — both matter, but not equally by default.
One problem, not ten
Ten clashes in one congested riser is usually a single underlying routing issue, not ten separate ones.
Where beats how many
One unresolved clash at a critical equipment connection can carry more risk than dozens in open ceiling space.
Not every clash is the same kind of problem
A hard clash is a direct geometric intersection. A soft or clearance issue involves required space around equipment, access, maintenance or installation. Both can matter, but they shouldn't automatically receive the same priority just because they showed up in the same test.
Look at severity, not just count
- Critical — likely to stop installation or affect major equipment
- High — requires a design or routing decision
- Medium — should be resolved before release
- Low — monitor, accept, or resolve during a later stage
The exact categories should be agreed with the project team rather than invented after the fact.
Ten clashes in one congested riser can represent one underlying routing problem — treating every intersection as a separate issue exaggerates the number without adding useful information.
Repeated clashes usually point to a systemic cause
Repeated clashes can indicate a systemic problem: a poorly coordinated family, an incorrect elevation, the wrong pipe diameter, a duplicate link, or a routing rule applied incorrectly across the project. Fixing the root cause resolves the cluster — chasing each instance individually doesn't.
Who needs to act, and where it actually sits
A clash report should make it obvious who needs to act — "HVAC vs electrical" isn't enough. Each issue should identify the responsible party, proposed action and due date where appropriate. And location often matters more than count: a single unresolved clash at a critical equipment connection can create more risk than dozens of minor clashes in open ceiling space.
A clean report doesn't prove buildability
A clean clash report doesn't prove the design is buildable. Coordination still needs human review for access, maintenance, installation sequence, supports, clearances and practical routing — the report is an input to that judgment, not a substitute for it.
The better question
Instead of asking "how many clashes are left?", ask which unresolved issues could affect construction, and what decision is needed to remove them. That shift — from counting clashes to managing risk — is what our clash detection and BIM coordination work is actually built around. See also clash detection vs. clash avoidance for the earlier-stage version of this same idea.