At NFPA in Las Vegas, I was honored to be a guest on The NFPA Podcast with Jesse Roman. In this podcast we talked about everyday AI adoption, today, specifically in our industry.

We spoke on how common AI LLMs are used today, things we've learned thus far, and strategies that have worked for those of us in fire protection that have found some success on it.

This personally was a fun talk as I got to share stories and some of the conversations that are top of mind for those we talk with regularly (contractors, engineers, code officials) as well as in our own testing and tinkering. 

Free to listen below:

If you enjoyed this, subscribe to NFPA's show and you'd also probable appreciate the Leader Insights 2026 series we're debuting on MeyerFire University at the end of August. Enjoy!

​- Joe

It was great to catch up with some of you at the NFPA Conference & Expo in Las Vegas last week. We had a booth, and I had a small speaking event for the first time at NFPA. Quite the experience. 

TRENDS AND CHANGES WITH AI ADOPTION 
If you’re looking to get your hands on Trends and Changes with AI Adoption, where I talked about real changes we’re seeing today in fire protection with entry-level Large Language Models (LLMs) – you can see the recording if you attended the NFPA Conference here (https://nfpa.confex.com/nfpa/2026/meetingapp.cgi/Session/15945). 

If you weren’t at NFPA, be part of MeyerFire University and get our entire 2026 Leader Insights Series, where I talk on the concepts presented in more depth, as the course releases at the end of August. 

​SUPRISING TAKEAWAY
In the talk, I present practical use cases for entry-level AI (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) that we’re seeing actively used in industry today.

A key part of the material is looking specifically at the best use cases not being one-for-one replacement for what we do today with AI.

I think instinctively, we look at our processes we do today, and we tiral chat-based AI as a substitute for our thinking or our process. It doesn’t do that well. Part of that is AI doesn’t have our unique worldview, expertise, or experience.
But the other part of it is that noone actually wants AI to be a substitute for our judgment, for our communication, for our work, or for the things that make us most human (advocacy, trust, empathy, relationships). Clients don’t want us to spit out AI – they can just get AI from their AI. They want us and our experience and expertise to own our work and support them through a project. 

The best thing I feel we can do today is lean into the areas where we provide the most value, and that’s increasingly the human-side of what we do. 

What if we could be more responsive to clients?

More present in meetings? 

Have significantly better work output? 

Those are all things that are improvements over what we do today. 
 
THE MISCONCEPTION
The general misconception, and I hadn’t entirely wrapped my head around it until I spoke with many people last week before and after the talk – is that we naturally want to take AI today and simply swap out something we do with AI. It doesn’t work well, and it’s not what our clients want. 

What’s far, far better, is to have AI help us QC our own work. It’s instant, nearly-free, and it can give us a grade on our own work. 

Here’s the key – we tell AI what it is we value. We tell it what to grade us on. What matters to us. That’s the key. Essentially, we create our own grading rubrics, and AI can help give feedback on what matters to us. 

If the report needs to be clearly communicated – if the change order proposal needs substantiation – if a proposal needs to be void of gaps – if the plan review needs code references, have AI grade us and tell us where we’re falling short. 

Not what the code reference should be (that’s a common AI hallucination and source of error today), but where in our work we don’t provide a reference (that’s really easy for AI to pick off). 

Large Language Models today work really well with two things – language and data. 

Despite being in a technical field, we have language everywhere – reports, emails, RFIs, plan reviews, meeting notes. We also have lots and lots and lots of data, though we usually don’t think of it that way. 

The last 10 years of the work we’ve done? The plan reviews we’ve sent? Our own boss’s review comments? Emails? RFI logs? Outside comments received? 

LLMs can make great use of that information, all internally, into our own QC checklists, grading rubrics, internal spreadsheets, internal dashboards, or internal tools that help us do far better work. 

Not replace a process, but build it better. 

There’s a huge difference there and the best applications we’ve seen thus far for fire protection and these entry-level LLMs are usually in that arena. 
 
Plenty more to come on this – if it’s a topic that interests you at all, I would greatly encourage you (that’s a midwest polite way to say seriously, check this out) to evaluate MeyerFire University for your team. We have so much technical and upstart coursework for new learners, but now we're NICET- and ICC-accredited CEUs and CPDs for senior-level teammates, 100+ PDF flowcharts, tables, cheat sheets, and checklists, and we’re adding our 2026 Leader Insights Series at the end of August. 

Most people I talk with are floored at how much has been added since they last looked. Come help your team get significantly better and be part of the community there – it costs less than you might think. 
 
Thanks, as always, for being part of what we do here! On the up -
​
– Joe

We're back for 2026 at the NFPA Conference & Expo!

Joe Meyer will present Trends and Changes with AI Adoption at Islander BG (Lower Level, Mandalay Bay Convention Center)  on Wednesday, June 24th at 8:00 am local time.

This presentation will feature the already-shifting landscape with AI adoption and what it means for client expectations, entry-level roles, formal and industry educators, and our own team's processes. The talk caps multiple studies (MeyerFire Insights Survey, 2026, and Purdue Solutions project, 2026) alongside real and anecdotal conversations from within the last year.

If you're not at NFPA this year, join MeyerFire University! We're releasing our first Leader Insights 2026 course on MeyerFire University this August that covers the shifts we're seeing but with actionable insights on what, as leaders, we can do about it.

If you're at NFPA, come see Joe, Erik & Jocelyn at The NFPA Expo! We're at Booth #1840, and the hours are:
Monday, June 22 3–6 p.m.
Tuesday, June 23 11 a.m.–4 p.m.
Wednesday, June 24 10 a.m.–2 p.m.

If you have ideas, tips, feedback, or things you'd want to see in the coming year, this is a great time to connect and share! This tends to be the biggest connector event of the year for the industry and we look forward to catching up with some of you there!

By Joe Meyer, PE | Founder / Fire Protection Engineer at MeyerFire

Just after this year's completion of the Fire Protection P.E. Exam in April, NCEES released a new exam specification for the Fire Protection P.E. Exam starting in April 2027.

THE CHANGES
On the surface, the topic weights seem to favor less data analysis and fundamentals and more systems-based applications. For instance, water-based suppression, special hazard, fire alarm, smoke control, and passive systems all gained 15 questions, on average, against the prior exam specification. That's a fairly significant shift, and it seems to be in line with the gripe many have had against the exam for years in that it's leaned too heavily in theory and not in practical, real-world application.

This shift may get us closer to regular Fire Protection Engineering applications, at least from the design and reviewer's regular working experience.
​

​REFERENCE UPDATES
Along with the topic reorganization, the referenced standards have shifted too. Every reference standard has a code edition update. NFPA 12 and NFPA 25 were removed, and NFPA 855 is a new edition to the P.E. Exam references.

There's an entire side of the industry that would probably lament that FPEs may never brush up against NFPA 25, including as part of the P.E. Exam efforts, but the modernization effort seems to be shifting to more modern challenges (introduction of NFPA 855) and away from less-common FPE applications (Carbon Dioxide Systems & ITM).

The full new exam specification can be found on NCEES's website here: ncees.org/exams/pe-exam/fire-protection/

OPPORTUNITY
If we're looking at this glass-half-full, this is a welcome change for many in the industry. Aligning closer to today's challenges and less on fundamentals has been an ask from many people for a long time. 

Is there a missed opportunity in not skipping straight to 2025 and 2026 standard editions? Certainly (I think), though I'm sure that'll come in time.

With shifts to the computer-based exam, we've seen pass rates temporarily rise. We'll likely know the pass rates for this April 2026's results in July. As with anything, it's hard to feel like a guinea pig in trying out the first iteration of any change, but historically those who have first passed through the wall have tended to score well; so my glass-half-full suggestion would be if you feel ready to study and take the exam, don't hesitate just because of some new nuance to the exam.

MEYERFIRE UNIVERSITY UPDATES
We've already put together our internal plans for updating all of our University content to reflect the new exam specification. It'll be implemented on a rolling basis, with all the new University content to be done before the bulk of the 2027 PE Exam study season in January. If you're studying in the fall you'll likely notice many updates already incorporated.

PE PREP GUIDE, 9TH EDITION
Because of the major update to the exam specification and new references, we're also working on a new edition to the popular PE Prep Guide. It'll be published as soon as it's complete, which will likely be this fall. All questions, study schedule, weighting, and programmatic advice need to be brought up to the new exam specification.

If we want to get an early start, will studying from an older edition suffice in the meantime? Of course! There is far more overlap from past exams than there are differences. Studying more, and earlier, never hurts. 

Any questions, let us know! Hope you have a great rest of your week.

​- Joe

By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director at MeyerFire

Last week, I celebrated my 1-year anniversary at MeyerFire. Yay me! Joining MeyerFire was a career pivot for me, having worked almost exclusively in Fire Protection consulting before that. I’m happy I was fortunate enough to find the right opportunity at the right time, and am really enjoying my new role.

Recently, a lot of what I’ve been working on here was content to help students preparing to take the Fire Protection PE exam, and an introductory course (coming soon!) that’s meant to teach current engineering students about what Fire Protection is. The thought is, when we make contact with students via the Student Connector, we have information readily available for them to let them know all about fire protection. Both of these efforts have had me looking back a bit. First in reminiscing about my winding pathway to how I got here and my pathway to becoming a licensed Fire Protection Engineer. And also in revisiting the basics, the fundamental concepts in fire protection engineering, and helping young professionals achieve their goals and progress their careers.

I’ve been feeling a lot like a professional Mama Bear. I care a lot about helping people be successful and finding their own paths. Even people I haven’t met!
 
MY PATHWAY
My path to being an engineer followed the “normal” engineering pathway. I attended a four-year engineering school studying Mechanical Engineering. I was organized and really good at math, and I like the order and quantitative finality that engineering brings. I thought I knew what I was going to do, designing machines at The Gillette Company in Boston. That didn’t really work out, so I stayed for my Master's degree when I wasn’t totally sure what I wanted to do. At the end of that tenure, I threw my resume on Monster.com (yes, it was still a thing back then) and ended up in Chicago for my first job. That part was a huge leap. I had lived in Massachusetts all my life, and I moved to a big city I hadn’t even visited before my job interview. The job offered me a bit of relief, though, when my first boss explained to me how people end up in Fire Protection from all over the place. I wasn’t starting out behind. 

In fact, I was starting out kind of ahead! I spent some summers working at my Mom’s fire sprinkler contracting business that my grandfather started, but I would still consider myself to be starting off at square one. I knew what NFPA 13 was and could name some of the major pieces of equipment, but I certainly didn’t know what a building code was, and I probably couldn’t tell you the actual difference between a butterfly valve and an OS&Y valve. I recognize that it was quite a privilege to have family members in the business, and I definitely called my Mom for help a few times in those first few years. “Mom, they’re telling me they need a fire pump, are they just trying to bully me, or is that real?” (In hindsight, yeah, it probably could have used a fire pump.)

It was at the first job where I learned that I really like the codes. It feels like a treasure hunt for me, I like following the pathways and understanding what the code says, what they meant to say, and how things change over time. Love that stuff. Looking back, that makes sense! I’ve always loved puzzles, and NYTimes crossword and games are part of my daily routine. Figuring stuff out and getting to a final answer are things I’ve always enjoyed. 

At my next few jobs, I specialized in data centers, and I liked that I could be good at something. That’s where I really felt like I started to stand out, it was like a double specialty, both fire protection and mission-critical designs. Then I took a brief stint working for a government contractor. But then I got right back into mission-critical consulting and ended up managing a team at my last job.
 
THE CAREER FABRIC
Looking back at my (almost) 20 years in the industry, the pathway hasn’t really been a straight line, and if you spend some time talking to people in fire protection, you’ll learn that hardly anyone’s path is a straight line.  Managing a team also taught me that lesson; I encountered people from all different pathways that somehow ended up at similar spots, and I got to see people develop into engineers first-hand.

There’s no one way to do things, and over the years you pull in parts from different people, projects, and places to create the fabric of your career.
​
Your career isn’t a ladder, it’s a tapestry. 

There are project lessons that teach you something and always stick with you. Did I make that fire pump mistake again? Yes, absolutely, but I didn’t make it a third time. There is something to learn and carry with you in every situation.

Even my brief stint at a government contractor, I spent most of my time writing a fire protection manual instead of design work. But a lot of the way that business was conducted was through letters, and being amid people who really understood fire protection, and those who didn’t. That was a hidden gift of boring paperwork and bureaucracy. It taught me a lot about technical writing and presenting information for groups of people with varying knowledge of your subject matter.

Writing precisely the right thing, no more, no less, is really hard! The wrong number can result in a change order, and a missing word could be a safety failure. I write some detailed technical reports, and they have to be appropriate for different audiences. Enough detail for people who are looking for thorough answers, but broad and basic enough for people who don’t have time to get into the weeds. But the practice I had in that job forced me to be better, and the skills I learned stay with me.

I was once interviewing an intern with two coworkers and she asked us about our favorite projects. One said a project where he got to design the best systems, and the second named a project where the client listened to him. And me, I said the one where everything went wrong. Seriously, I picked up the project shortly after joining the company, after DD, and the design was missing so much. Some of it basic, and some of it was very specific AHJ requirements. It seemed like one thing after another, changes to our drawings, constant calls to walk through technical situations, and several technical memos and opinions to justify design decisions. But bit by bit we worked through it, and at the end of the day, that was the job I learned the most from, so it ended up being my favorite. I was pretty proud of how much ground was made up from when I started to where I ended up.

You take the things with you, make the best of the situation you’re in. And by “making the best of it” I don’t mean as a consolation prize, but seizing the opportunity that’s in front of you.

NAVIGATING THE SNAGS AND SPEED BUMPS
How do we do that? A lot of our jobs and careers are outside of our control. There will be rips or snags in the fabric. You won’t know when you move across the country for your first job that there will be a nationwide economic crisis. (Yikes, that was fun.) You can’t control if the small business you joined gets bought by a much larger company. But learning adaptability is a skill.

Recessions are more than just annoying, but slowdowns are a good time to take your time, enjoy the quiet, and squeeze as much as you can out of the role you’re in. It’s no secret that private equity is infiltrating a lot of sectors. Acquisitions are more than just annoying, but they’re a good opportunity to take advantage of corporate structure. When your company gets bought, it’s easy to feel like a number, but that’s a good time to master the business side of engineering. 

When you look around and consider the people who you encounter that you deem to be successful, the common denominator is usually that they’ve found what they’re good at and they’ve made the best of the opportunities available to them and the situations they’re in. Things are constantly changing around us, whether it’s our company, technology, or codes. If we spend time learning our own strengths and weaknesses, that helps us make the most out of our experience.

I always tell people to squeeze as much as they can out of the position they’re in. If their company offers training or will reimburse for coursework or licensing prep courses, take advantage of it!

MAMA BEAR ADVICE
After all that contemplating, the career advice that didn’t end up in the course ended up here. If I had to give three pieces of advice it would be:

1. Don’t panic at the pivots. It’s hard in the moment (ask me how I know), but learn some good breathwork and consider how you can make the best of it. You can’t control your reaction, but you can control your response.
2. Your company, the economy, and the code will change. How you learn from it and choose to incorporate it into your career tapestry is what’s important. 
3. Every job (even the bad ones) gives you a tool for your toolbelt.

 
Have you had any unraveling or frays in your career that ended up being your biggest lesson?

By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director at MeyerFire

Hiring in fire protection is tough.

You can have a perfectly written requisition, offer the right salary, and still watch it sit open for months, waiting for the right person to come along.

Before joining MeyerFire I led a fire protection group of 15 people across 5 locations at a large global firm. Management and running a group isn’t just about managing the team you already have. If you’re lucky enough to be at a growing company, it’s also about finding the right people to join your team and fill open roles in the right locations. Even with a full talent acquisition team and sophisticated systems, we still struggled to fill fire protection roles.

Because the challenge isn’t just hiring. It’s finding people who even know this field exists.
 
WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE?
I remember trying to explain to a manager from a few jobs ago, who was not a fire protection engineer, just how special a bunch we were. He thought we could just drive to WPI and show up in the fire protection lab with some pizza, and they’d be knocking down our door to work with us. I appreciated his optimism, but it doesn’t work like that anymore! Especially not in fire protection, those students already had jobs lined up.

Imagine your team is getting pushed – really stretched thin. 

You could say yes to more work for the team if only you had the hands to pull it off. 

You’d hire – but there’s a problem. 

Where do you find people? 

Working for competitors? 

Hiring away from competitors is a short-term fix for an industry-wide problem. We can’t keep robbing from other companies if we’re going to grow the industry. 

Surely you've seen it; we need to bring people into the industry. We are not bringing people in at the rate that the demand increases and people are retiring. The math isn't mathing. 
 
But there lies the bigger problem - where are the students? 

WHERE ARE THE STUDENTS? 
In our industry, we have very few fire protection programs. Few locations, few graduates. There are only so many high schoolers who know about the fire protection industry before choosing a program. 
 
Maybe we look to bring in a few interns each year. Maybe we look for a few new hires in the hope that they grow into meaningful leaders on the team. 

But, where do you find them? 

Go to a local college career fair? Make a strong pitch for a student to split from their degree and go into fire protection, and hire them on the spot? 

What are the true chances of that? One in a hundred? One in five hundred? 

At those rates, are you going to attend all nearby career fairs? 

No; small and midsize employers know we can’t be at 12 regional career fairs in the hope of bringing over, maybe, one college student. It's a lot of time to put out for the chance meeting with your unicorn student.

It’s a scale problem.

WHAT'S BEEN TRIED
What else do we try? Connect with local college professors? Guest lectures? Create a career social media account?
 
The problem is, these things have been tried. They can be great - but we're still very short on talent.
 
Huge companies have recruiting staff. Maybe they get in front of enough talent, maybe not.
 
But for everyone else, the problem is scale and connectivity.

We can’t be everywhere at once. And we can’t exhaust ourselves in the hope of maybe finding an interested student.

SCALE & CONNECTIVITY
We need, as an industry, to find students where they are. We need to advocate for the upside of this awesome industry. And, when that first spark is lit, we need to connect those students with our opportunities in a consistent way.
 
What does MeyerFire have to do with it?

We’re not hiring big dogs – but we are good at connecting people. Whether via forums, learning, or resources, we do online connectivity and scale in slightly new ways.

NEW: STUDENT CONNECTOR
The concept for our new Student Connector, which launches today, is to find students who have shown even a little interest in fire protection – wherever they are – and connect them with employers seeking that talent.

So what we’re introducing today is a simple way to bridge that gap.

It’s meeting a scale problem with scale.

Easy for students to signup, easy for organizations to share opportunities with the students.

​

Joe Meyer, PE | Fire Protection Engineer at MeyerFire
 
We’re a few weeks out from the P.E. Exam. I’ve been studying – not exactly as much as I would like, but I’ve been trying.

My scores aren’t exactly where I would want them to be. I don’t feel ready. Should I even take this exam?

THAT FEELING
If you’re taking the P.E. Exam (or have taken it), you know the feeling.

It feels like there’s a lot at stake.

Why? The exam is only once a year. It matters for my future career. For options, flexibility, pay, and recognition. Prep costs a lot. The exam itself isn’t free. I really don’t want to take it again.

As a college student, I didn’t know anything about fire protection.

I knew sprinkler systems existed. I knew fire alarms were loud. I knew how a fire drill worked. But as a career path? No idea that it was even an engineering discipline.

As it turns out, I wasn’t alone. Most college students don’t know about fire protection as a career.

Most don’t realize that it’s (1) in high demand, (2) well-paying, (3) technically challenging, and (4) is very meaningful work. Most people don’t plan to enter fire protection at all. Many fall into it and end up loving it.

SOMETHING DIFFERENT
I was studying architectural engineering at the time. Loved architecture. Loved construction. Was decent at math and science. Then one day in an intro-level class, I caught a guest lecture on fire protection engineering.

Seemed viable. Stable. Different. 

Perhaps most appealing was that it seemed like an industry where I could make an actual impact.

LANDING THAT FIRST INTERNSHIP
But, knowing about a field was one thing. Having that spark is great. But what’s that next step?

How do I actually land an internship or job? As a student, that’s not an obvious answer.

What companies actually do fire protection? Who hires interns? Are jobs even posted anywhere? Will calling 30 places actually go anywhere?

Many of the best opportunities don’t even show up online. As I know now, many smaller organizations – often the best places to learn – don’t have formal recruiting at all. So there ends up being this massive gap between being interested and landing that first opportunity.

HIRING COMPANIES EXIST
As I know now, companies are hiring. They’re looking for talent.

But - they can’t be at every career fair. They don’t always recruit consistently. Many don’t have the systems to find the students.

Both sides exist - they just don’t easily connect. There’s a massive disconnect.

Fire protection is a great field. Real demand. Real opportunity. Unfilled jobs. Long-term impact.

But the path to it isn’t obvious.

What seems like charting our own course is actually the most common path.

85% of fire protection designers and engineers in consulting firms didn’t have a fire protection degree going in. The industry is a melting pot of people from many different backgrounds.

THE STUDENT CONNECTOR
Being on the other side now, our fix is pretty simple. We’re calling it the Student Connector.

If you’re a student, and you’re even a little interested in fire protection, the industry wants to know!

Consultants, contractors and agencies often right in your neighborhood don’t know you exist.

How it works:
- You share a few details about yourself (school, degree, what you’re seeking)
- We make that visible to vetted fire protection organizations actively looking for talent
- Employers can see who’s interested – especially in their area
​

By Jocelyn Sarrantonio, PE | Technical Director at MeyerFire

If you follow me on LinkedIn, you may have noticed that I’ve started taking my technical QA/QC job a little too seriously, pointing out errors in the AI slop that has now become the norm on the platform. You know the ones I’m talking about.

I can’t scroll by without trying to spot the errors.

Why bother? Why do I care so much?

​At first, it was just about accuracy. Someone on the internet was wrong! About something I know about! 

Now it’s become kind of a sick sport. I’m not on a crusade against AI. I certainly use it as a tool in my work life; AI is the best proofreader around! What bothers me is when AI slop is presented as helpful material, yet it’s riddled with errors.

What is that teaching anyone?
 
UNOBVIOUS ERROR
It should not come as news to anyone that AI struggles with accuracy.  I’m not proud to say I’ve gotten frustrated with a computer that gets commodity classification or nuanced (copyrighted) code interpretations wrong. Remember the “Will Smith eating spaghetti” videos that used to circulate as proof that AI wasn’t quite there yet? They were easy to laugh at because the mistakes were so obvious.

Now the errors aren’t so noticeable.

The hands have five fingers, the spaghetti looks real, and I find myself wondering if Will Smith recorded a video to troll us. The mistakes are getting much harder to spot. 

AI is not the villain; it’s just a tool that people use to present their ideas. People said the same things about Photoshop, the internet, and computers. I wasn’t around, but maybe they said the same thing about the typewriter! Tools are there to help the person wielding them.

But here is the point: we are our work. Our output reflects us.

When the materials are targeted to be basic or fundamental, the audience may only have a vague background of the content; they can’t simultaneously learn and error check.

So how do they know what’s accurate within an AI diagram, and what’s incorrect?

And when errors are pointed out, it really grates on me when the response is, “Ignore those details! Just take the main point.”  When people are learning something new, how are they supposed to know what’s correct and what’s AI hallucinations? The wrong conclusions may stick, and they’re just trying to learn!
 
CALLING IT OUT
This is not new, even though AI is.

I’m sure we have all sat through a presentation where it was clear the speaker wasn’t prepared, or a webinar where someone slipped up and said the wrong thing. If you’re sitting in that room, either in real life or virtually, how do you handle that?

Theoretically, the speaker would be receptive to constructive criticism in the right environment. Scrutiny makes content better. To me, it’s the same thing as commenting on AI slop, but is that really the best strategy?

Is that helping anyone?
 
WE ARE WHAT WE 𝚂̶𝙿̶𝙴̶𝚆̶  POST
Just like in engineering, when we affix an engineering seal to a drawing, set of calculations, or a report, it doesn’t mean we personally drew every line, or wrote every word, but it does mean we’re responsible for the output. And we are required to stand behind it once it’s out in the world.

There are formal processes for formal documents, like responding to permit comments and RFI’s. But informally, or when there are no processes, we still have to stand behind our work. Whether it’s stamped or posted, we own what we put into the world. It reflects us.

I won’t equate an infographic with an engineering report, but if you post it, share it, or stamp it, it’s yours. You can’t blame ChatGPT any more than you’d blame a drafter or an intern. And it’s also respectful of your audience’s time. If it’s truly not worth your time to put together, why should we expect someone else’s time to read it? If you’re willing to put your name on it, you’re responsible for it. Whether you typed it or prompted it.
 
DEALING WITH IMPERFECTION
Now, I’m not perfect. We’re not perfect. None of us is. Mistakes are an assumed part of the process, that’s why there are built-in checks and layers to construction. Because this stuff is that important. We’re dealing with life safety, and often of an unaware public.

And I assure you, we at MeyerFire certainly make mistakes too. Turns out it’s really hard to produce mistake-free content, no matter how many eyes are put on it. And we truly (truly truly) appreciate the superfans who challenge us when something isn’t correct, so we can fix it for the next learner.

At the time of this writing, we have six outstanding PE practice questions and two videos that need correction on our site.

As engineers, we won’t hit perfection, but responding to mistakes says a lot about how we operate. Just ask my 11-year-old daughter, who gave me the death stare when she was rehearsing her upcoming presentation, and I pointed out that Italy actually uses Euros instead of dollars. Or my husband, who is probably sick of me reviewing his materials. Or me! Who has definitely flubbed a few lines in recordings for my courses.

TAKING THE HIT
So often in the consulting culture, we’ll say we don’t have time for QA/QC or time to train the new hires, we’re barely keeping up with our workload. Quality work takes time, and we all know there’s a noticeable difference in our work when we’re prepared versus when we’re unprepared. But scrutiny makes content better. Ultimately, I’d rather take a friendly edit from my peers, my family, or my boss than a comment from a stranger. But I have to be ready for both if I’m truly owning my output.

​I would often tell my team that when you’re reviewing a submittal, you can tell a lot by how the information is presented. The same goes for a set of drawings. If you see mistakes on the small stuff or very obvious errors, you start peeling back the layers and find mistakes everywhere. On the other hand, if you can tell someone took pride and care with how the information is presented, that likely follows through with the care and attention taken with the technical aspects, not just the visuals.  
 
HOW TO ADDRESS IT?

So, what is the correct way to call out errors?

We know how to do it with permit submittals or submittal reviews, but how would you address an error in an in-person training? What about a webinar? And bad AI on LinkedIn? Is it a public correction or a private message? Or, silence.

Does it even matter? When we work in life safety, I think it does. I’ll stand on that hill.

We are our work output. And it’s important to stand behind our work, whatever it is. Especially in construction and life safety, the details matter, and affixing our engineering stamp to work means a high level of professional accountability.

If you’re willing to put your name on it, it’s your responsibility. AI doesn’t change any of that, it’s just made it easier to forget.