A building may contain many occurrences of one object type, but each occurrence can have its own location and records. If a film explains model information, distinguish shared type information from item-specific information. Otherwise a fact about one selected item can appear to describe every similar item in the project.
buildingSMART's type-relationship documentation describes one type assigned to multiple occurrences and properties associated at either level. The client's model owner should identify which level supports each statement in the film.
Pick a fact that reveals the distinction
A shared product description can introduce the type. A location or an approved occurrence record can then show why individual identity still matters. Use the project's actual information structure rather than inventing a generic hierarchy that merely looks tidy.
The film does not need to display every occurrence. A small, clearly schematic group can establish repetition before one item is selected. Avoid using a literal count unless the source confirms it.
Keep the selected occurrence recognisable after the group view disappears. A locator or short identifier can maintain continuity between the building view and the information panel.
Avoid spreading a local record through the animation
A graphic that copies every field from one selected item to all similar objects may imply that local records are shared. Ask the specialist to identify which information is common and which remains attached to an individual occurrence.
The reverse problem also matters. Showing the same type description as separately authored for every item can obscure the information relationship the client wants to explain. The visual should represent the approved structure without claiming a particular software editing workflow.
Use different labels for type and occurrence rather than relying solely on grouping boxes. A box can mean a spatial room, a product family or a work package unless its relationship is named.
A hypothetical handover sequence
Imagine a project film follows one pump record in a building model. The first animation copies its location and inspection date across all pumps of the same type because their geometry looks identical.
The buyer revises the sequence to separate the shared product description from the selected occurrence's record. The audience can now understand both repetition and individuality. This invented example does not assert how any real project's asset system is configured.
At review, ask which facts viewers believe are shared across the group and which belong to the highlighted item. If those answers differ from the model owner's account, the information hierarchy needs clearer staging.
The commission should explain a supplied type-to-occurrence relationship. It should not promise that every installed item has been individually verified or that changing one record safely updates an entire asset portfolio. Those claims require evidence beyond a model graphic.
Discuss the film
Contact Live Images to discuss whether this approach suits your brief and what production scope would be appropriate.
Prepared with AI assistance for Live Images. Planning guidance is general; suitability and production scope must be agreed for your project.