A structured performance audit is the correct starting point because it evaluates the model comprehensively rather than assuming a single cause. The review should examine warning quantity and severity, file size, imported or linked CAD data, excessive views, unused content, model groups, in-place families, highly detailed components, workset configuration, and other authoring practices that can increase regeneration time and memory consumption.

In-place families are particularly relevant because numerous or geometrically complex instances can make the model difficult to maintain and may increase computational overhead. Warning trends also matter: some warnings create repeated relationship checking or indicate poor modelling practices, although warning count alone does not determine performance.

Deleting sheets or exporting only 3D views damages the project’s documentation structure and does not constitute a controlled health-improvement strategy. Clash reports evaluate multidisciplinary spatial conflicts; they do not diagnose the internal efficiency of the submitted Revit model. Loading linked files individually can be useful later when evidence specifically implicates a link, but it is too narrow as the primary health assessment.

The audit should produce documented findings, prioritized recommendations, and measurable actions that the consultant can implement without compromising required project deliverables.

Reference topics: Revit model-health audits; performance management; warnings; in-place families; file-size analysis; consultant model review; coordination readiness.