Condition assessment report review that puts every finding you paid for into the asset health index, each grade checked against the last survey
Every finding you paid for reaches the health index, each grade checked against the last.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Consultants, manufacturers and test crews hand a utility its condition evidence as long PDFs: a 148-page five-yearly survey of a water treatment works, 22 breaker timing and contact resistance certificates from a primary substation, a trunk-main wall thickness survey, a quarterly oil laboratory batch. Somebody has to type the grades and readings into the EAM. Often it happens weeks later, and much of it never happens at all, so the asset health index runs on the previous survey or on nothing.
Nobody re-reads the last report either. Grades are compared from memory, if at all, so a roof that goes from poor to good with no repair on record, or a breaker graded good that trips late on its own certificate, goes straight into the index. A replaced pump keeps its old nameplate in the register, and new plant is never handed over. Capital then goes to the wrong assets, and defects past their limits wait for the next outage.
Estimated split, in working hours, for one 148-page site survey with about 140 findings, by hand and with the solution. With the solution, the hours left are the engineer's decisions on flagged findings and the steward's release.
Six specialist agents read, match, check and question every finding; the asset engineer decides and a data steward releases.
Lumina Utilities runs Kestrel Bay Water Treatment Works. Arden Hale Consulting has finished its five-yearly condition assessment, KBW-CA-2026 Rev 0: 148 pages, surveyed 1–18 September 2026, issued 2 October, received 12 October. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Hannah owns the treatment works in the south region and reads every consultant report for them. The review screen shows the report itself on the left, page by page, and the 63 assets in scope on the right, each with its 2021 grade from KBW-CA-2021. The 2026 column still reads “not read”.
“Not read yet. Six agents will read all 148 pages, match every asset to the register, check each reading against its limit and compare every grade with the 2021 survey and the work history. You decide on anything they question.”
She clicks Read the report. The report reader takes in 5 sections, 31 tables, 108 photographs and 9 test certificates in Appendix C. The asset matcher finds 63 of 64 assets in the register. The findings extractor pulls 142 findings and 38 readings, the limits checker tests the readings against 10 limits, and the history checker compares every grade with 2021.
Asset matcher: “Matched 63 of 64 assets to the register · MCC4 is not in the register · P-03 serial differs.”
The screen opens on Needs you: 12 of 142 findings. Raw water pump P-03 shows Serial differs, MCC4 Not in register, and seven rows are Out of limit, including CB-03 contact resistance at 142 µΩ, transformer T1 oil at 38 kV and acetylene at 4 ppm, raw water pump P-02 at a polarisation index of 1.4 and the DN600 rising main wall at 6.1 mm.
“Read by six agents in 4 min 12 s · 142 findings and 38 readings from 148 pages · 7 out of limit · 6 grades questioned against the 2021 survey · 12 need you”
Clicking transformer T1's insulating oil row scrolls the report to section 4.10 on page 32 and highlights the sentence: breakdown voltage 38 kV, certificate LAB-26-0912. The row shows the reading against the IEC 60422 limit of ≥ 40 kV for equipment below 72.5 kV, and the recommended action.
Limits checker: “Filter and dry the oil; resample after treatment.”
Arden Hale graded the filter building roof covering 4, good. In 2021 Pellow & Marsh Engineers graded it 2, with blistering, splits and water getting into the filter gallery. The work history shows only gutter clearing in March 2023 and a temporary patch in January 2024; roof replacement CP-2023-118 is deferred, not started. Photograph 5.4 shows a single-ply membrane, but the filter building has built-up felt.
History checker: “The chemical building roof was relaid in single-ply in June 2024 (work order 4502216). The surveyor may have graded the wrong roof.”
Three sources sit side by side — this report's sentence on page 52, the 2021 sentence on page 28, and the work orders — and the asset history draws the grade over 2016, 2021 and 2026 with the questioned rise dashed. Hannah chooses Keep grade 2 and ask Arden Hale. Accepting grade 4 would have needed a written reason, shown to the condition assessment lead with the summary.
“Kept grade 2 · question sent to Arden Hale · 11 still need you” — answer due in 10 working days under framework FW-0417.
Changes since 2021 sets the two surveys against each other for the 63 assets in both: 49 held their grade, 9 got worse, 5 improved. Six grades are questioned, among them backwash pump P-07, which rose 2 → 4 while its vibration stayed the same (6.9 mm/s in 2021, 6.8 now), and CB-07, graded 4 while its trip time is 71 ms. Seven element grades that improved are explained by completed work, such as the CB-05 mechanism overhaul in July 2022.
“Improved, with the work that explains it · 7 — accepted by the History checker”
Readings shows the 38 readings against their limits, each with its standard, source page and recommended action: replace the L2 vacuum interrupter on CB-03 at the next outage; restrict CB-07 to manual switching until it trips within 60 ms; rewind or replace the P-02 motor and run P-01, P-03 and P-04 as duty. Hannah clicks Raise defects for all 7, and DN-8841208 to DN-8841319 are drafted for the maintenance planner.
“7 defects drafted for the maintenance planner · 4 findings still need you”
The EAM update file holds a condition update or reading for every finding, each with its source page. Hannah sends 138 ready updates to Wen Li; 4 stay held until they are decided. Wen releases them, and the register correction for P-03 (serial KX-22-80417, Kestner KS-450, installed 2024) and the new asset record for MCC4 are waiting for her.
“Wen Li released 138 updates · Kestrel Bay WTW health index recalculates tonight”
The update writer drafts the summary from the findings and Hannah's decisions, every line linked to its page. It tells capital planning to keep filter building roof replacement CP-2023-118 in the 2027 plan, and says the DN600 rising main at 6.1 mm against 7.0 mm supports bringing its renewal forward. Hannah signs and sends it to Graham Pell, who signs and sends it to Imogen Shaw.
In one line: “The filter building roof is not improved: it stays at grade 2 until the consultant explains a grade the work history does not support.”
The same survey, seen by the five people who touch it — what it looked like by hand, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents read, match, check and question every finding; the asset engineer decides and a data steward releases.
Reads consultant, manufacturer and test reports of any layout — sections, tables, photographs and appended certificates — and keeps the page, paragraph and sentence for every statement and the caption for every photograph.
Matches every asset the report names to the asset register by tag first, then nameplate, serial and location, and reports assets the register does not hold and nameplates that differ from it.
Turns each statement into a finding — element, grade, defect, reading with its unit and certificate, and recommendation — converting another grading scale to Lumina's and showing the conversion.
Checks every reading against the limit in Lumina's engineering standards or the manufacturer's data — breaker timing and contact resistance, IEEE 43 insulation, IEC 60422 and ES-214 oil, ISO 10816-3 vibration, WS-118 wall thickness — and proposes a defect for the planner.
Compares every grade with the last two surveys and the work orders since, questions grades the evidence does not support, and checks photographs against the asset's material and type. Each night it rechecks questioned grades when work orders close.
Writes one condition update per finding with its source page, drafts a defect notification for each out-of-limit reading and a question to the consultant for each grade kept, and writes the one-page summary for capital planning.
Decides flagged findings; data steward releases to the EAM. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any asset, reading or grade in the report, or say what to question. Every answer points to its page.
Why is the filter building roof questioned?
Arden Hale graded the roof covering 4, good. In 2021 Pellow & Marsh graded it 2, with blistering, splits and water getting into the filter gallery, and recommended replacement within two years. Since then the work history shows only gutter clearing in March 2023 and a temporary patch in January 2024; CP-2023-118 is deferred and not started. Photograph 5.4 shows a single-ply membrane, which is the chemical building roof relaid in 2024. I suggest keeping grade 2 and asking Arden Hale to recheck.
Which readings at Kestrel Bay are out of limit?
Seven of the 38: CB-03 contact resistance, CB-07 trip time, transformer T1 oil breakdown voltage and acetylene, clarifier 2 carbonation, the P-02 motor's polarisation index and the DN600 rising main wall. CB-07 is the one to watch: the consultant graded it good, but it trips in 71 ms against 60 ms, and it feeds the ozone plant.
Draft the questions to Arden Hale
Three questions under framework FW-0417, answer due in 10 working days: which roof photograph 5.4 shows, and the basis for grade 4; what supports grade 4 for backwash pump P-07 when vibration is 6.8 mm/s, as in 2021 (6.9); and what defect gives the sludge thickener bridge grade 2. The 2021 grades stay on all three until they answer.
What changes in the capital plan if we accept this report?
Two things move. The DN600 rising main, with 6.1 mm of wall against 7.0 mm at the river crossing, supports bringing its renewal forward. Taking the roof's grade of 4 as written would let CP-2023-118 slip again; the evidence says it should stay in 2027. P-02's motor, T1's oil and clarifier 2 are maintenance, not capital.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How grades are read, when one is questioned and who releases and signs are settings, chosen by the asset management team.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Grading scale | Lumina 1–5 (5 = very good) | Lumina 1–5 (5 = very good) · Lumina 1–5 (1 = very good) · A–E — reports on another scale are converted, and the conversion is shown on each finding |
| Asset grade | Worst element | Worst element · Weighted by element · Consultant's overall grade |
| Extraction confidence to accept without review | 90% | Set up or down; below it a finding is shown to the engineer before it is loaded |
| Grade fell sharply with no defect described | 2 grades | Set the fall, in grades, that is questioned when the text describes no defect |
| Other questioning rules | All on | Grade improved with no work recorded · Grade does not match the reading · Nameplate or serial differs from the register · Photograph does not match the asset — each On or Off |
| Releasing the EAM update | Wen Li | Wen Li · Marcus Adeyemi — nothing is written to the EAM before a data steward releases it |
| Report summary signed by | Graham Pell | Graham Pell · Sunita Rao — signed before it goes to capital planning |
| Questions to the consultant | 10 working days | 5 · 10 · 15 working days, under the framework contract |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate, for the split of hours only · “typical” = published figures (NASSCO PACP condition grading: an averaged Pipe Rating Index of 3 can hide six grade-5 defects behind six grade-1 defects). Context: CIGRE TB 761 via IEEE Access 2021 (incomplete records drive health-index uncertainty); Ontario Energy Board distribution system plan filings (asset condition assessments). Lumina Utilities, Kestrel Bay Water Treatment Works, the consultants, assets, records and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that reads the condition assessment reports and test certificates consultants, manufacturers and test crews deliver, and turns them into structured findings and readings for the EAM and the asset health index. Condition Assessment Report Review uses six agents to read, match, extract, check limits and compare with the last survey; the asset engineer decides what they question and a data steward releases the update.
The report reader takes in the whole report, including scanned tables, photographs and appended certificates. The asset matcher finds each asset in the register by tag, nameplate, serial and location, and the findings extractor records the element, grade, defect, reading with its unit and certificate, and recommendation — each tied to its page and sentence.
The history checker compares every grade with the last two surveys and the work orders since. It questions a grade that improved with no work recorded, fell sharply with no defect described, does not match its reading, sits on an asset whose serial differs from the register, or comes with a photograph that does not match the asset.
Your own engineering standards and the manufacturers' data, held in Settings — for example breaker trip time ≤ 60 ms, contact resistance ≤ 100 µΩ, polarisation index ≥ 2.0, oil breakdown voltage ≥ 40 kV, acetylene ≤ 2 ppm and vibration ≤ 7.1 mm/s. Limits never come from the report itself.
No. The update writer stages an update file with a source page on every row. Nothing is written to the EAM until a data steward releases it, held findings never enter the file, and asset records are created or corrected only by a data steward.
Yes. Agents never change a grade. The asset engineer accepts, holds or questions each flagged finding, and accepting a questioned grade needs a written reason that is kept on the audit trail and shown to the condition assessment lead with the summary.
Yes. The sample works covers switchgear, transformers, motor control centres, pumps, pipework, civil structures and instrumentation, and the report list includes breaker certificates, a cable partial discharge survey, a trunk-main wall survey, oil laboratory results and a wood pole inspection.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your grading scale, engineering standards, register and a sample of past condition reports — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own surveys first.
Defects caught while they grow: every structure compared with last year's flight.
1-min demoAsset Health IndexThe same capital budget removes 2.5× the risk, every score traced to its evidence.
1-min demoMaintenance Knowledge SearchDecades of fixes, searchable before the expert retires.
1-min demoWe'll run Condition Assessment Report Review on one of your own consultant surveys and its last report.