Keep the asset register connected to evidence
Integrity management depends on knowing which asset and component each finding describes. Link inspection records to current configuration, service history, repairs and operating context. A shared folder of reports is not a review cycle if findings cannot be recovered or their status is unknown.
The asset integrity management service supports risk-based planning and engineering assessment within an agreed programme. The aim is to make evidence useful for decisions, not to imply that repeated inspection removes all failure risk.
Check evidence quality before prioritising
Review location traceability, method suitability, coverage and uncertainty. An apparent trend based on non-comparable readings needs clarification before it drives a capital decision. An unexamined critical area is an evidence gap, not a satisfactory finding.
Keep raw observations distinct from engineering assessment and management priority. This lets a reviewer revisit the basis if loads, service conditions or data change. Where the evidence is inadequate, the action may be additional investigation rather than an immediate repair recommendation.
Use risk to frame the next question
Risk-based review considers potential failure mechanisms, likelihood evidence and consequences in the asset's context. The method and level of analysis should suit the programme and available information. A high or low label without an explained basis can conceal assumptions and inconsistent treatment.
Inspection can reduce uncertainty about condition but does not necessarily reduce the consequence of failure. Controls, repairs, redesign or operational decisions may address different parts of the risk. The responsible team should distinguish those actions instead of treating more testing as the answer to every concern.
Assign actions and define closure evidence
For each finding, name the owner, intended review, required evidence and due point under the programme. Link repairs and further examinations to the original item. Closure should reflect completion of the agreed action and review, not simply the receipt of another report.
If monitoring is selected by the responsible reviewer, establish repeatable locations and a comparison basis. Inspection timing depends on the asset, damage mechanism, history, applicable requirements and competent advice. There is no universal annual cycle that fits every industrial asset.
Reassess when the basis changes
Changes in duty, process, environment, configuration or a significant finding can invalidate assumptions in an earlier plan. Define how these changes trigger review and keep the previous basis available. A scheduled review date should not prevent an earlier assessment when new evidence warrants it.
Track unresolved findings, evidence gaps, completed actions and reasons for changed priorities. Management summaries should preserve the limits behind the headline status. An integrity programme supports informed maintenance and engineering decisions; it does not guarantee life extension or authorise operation independently of the responsible parties.
- Identifiable assets and located findings.
- Evidence quality and uncertainty reviewed.
- Risk basis, review responsibilities and action owners recorded.
- Closure evidence linked to the original finding.
- Changed conditions trigger documented reassessment.