Office review

UST report review checklist.

Before you send a report, check that the work, equipment and field records agree. Use these six checks to organize office review and make unresolved information and work clear.

Six checks before sharing the report.

This guide covers record review. Your qualified team determines applicable requirements, test methods and technical results. Completing these checks does not establish that equipment passed, repairs are complete or regulatory duties are satisfied.

  1. Match the job to the site and equipment.

    Compare the customer, site and equipment identifiers across the job, field forms and report. Follow the relationships that matter to the work, such as a sensor's location or a detector's line. A familiar equipment label can appear at more than one site.

    Clarify in the record: The record does not make clear which equipment was inspected or tested.

  2. Compare the return with the assigned scope.

    Check which forms and equipment were assigned, which records came back and which work remains open. Confirm the expected form edition and output with the person responsible for the requirements. A job called “Annual” does not by itself define every task that applies to the site.

    Clarify in the record: A missing form, omitted asset or scope difference has no explanation.

  3. Make missing information explicit.

    Check that required fields and supporting records for the agreed work are present and readable. Return a specific question to the person who can answer it. Keep the original source and the clarification connected; do not invent a reading or replace an unknown value with an assumed answer.

    Clarify in the record: A reviewer would have to guess what happened or who supplied the correction.

  4. Keep the field result separate from record review.

    A complete record can document a failed test. Reviewing the paperwork does not change that technical result. Describe unresolved findings and the next action separately from the decision that the record is ready to share.

    Clarify in the record: “Reviewed,” “passed” or “complete” is being used without making clear whether it describes the record, the equipment result or the remaining work.

  5. Read the report you intend to send.

    Open the intended report version and compare it with the reviewed field records. Check equipment identity, included forms, results and supporting material. Make corrections in the source workflow and inspect the resulting output again.

    Clarify in the record: The report is an older version, omits relevant records or disagrees with the reviewed source.

  6. Confirm the recipient and preserve the handoff.

    Check who is authorized to receive the report and which version they should receive. Keep the shared output identifiable alongside its source records. Assign unresolved work to the responsible person; sharing a report does not close a repair or retest.

    Clarify in the record: The recipient, report version or owner of remaining work is unclear.

A complete record can still document a failed test.

Consider a field form that records a failed sensor test but leaves the sensor's location unclear. The reviewer asks the crew to identify the location and checks the clarification against the site record. That clarification can complete the record. The failed result stays failed; any repair and retest remain separate work.

This is an illustrative review situation. The checklist does not prescribe a test procedure or determine the technical response to a failed result.

Follow a fictional Annual visit through review

Use the guide with your own workflow.

Choose one normal job, its returned forms and the report your customer needs. Work through the six checks with the people who perform and review the job. Record the differences that your company's process needs to handle.

Bring your review workflow into focus.

Bring a typical job, a returned form and the report you deliver. We can compare the handoff with Stratum's supported configuration.