Find the issue.
Follow the evidence.
A finding should tell your engineer what to examine, where it appears, and why it matters. Review procedures against site context and keep the decision with the people responsible for the work.
A finding is the start
of a decision.
Inspect three sample findings. Request a revision or accept a finding with a reason, then see what the review status actually means.
Drawing revision mismatch
Reference: SLD-001, Revision B.
The current example site register lists SLD-001, Revision C.
The reviewer needs to check which changes in the current drawing affect the task.
Record a decision on all three findings. Completing this review does not authorize field work.
Give your reviewer
something they can act on.
The number of flags is less useful than the quality of the decisions those flags support.
Find the exact concern
Locate the step, reference, or equipment relationship that needs attention. Keep the surrounding task visible when assessing the finding.
Check the source
Compare the procedure against the relevant drawing, document revision, or agreed site requirement. Resolve gaps in the evidence before relying on a conclusion.
Keep the decision accountable
Capture a correction, a request for information, or an acceptance with a reason. Separate software review, engineer review, and authorization to proceed.
Make review quality
visible to the buyer.
A strong evaluation includes both known problems and procedures that should pass.
Discuss systems and integrationsRelevant checks
Choose what to assess: reference accuracy, equipment names, dependencies, prerequisites, sequence, and required contingencies within the agreed scope.
Missed issues
Use a benchmark set your engineers understand. Record which meaningful issues are identified and which remain for the human reviewer.
False positives
Include valid examples. Measure how much time engineers spend dismissing concerns and whether the explanation supports an efficient decision.
Revision control
Change a source or a procedure and inspect what must be reviewed again. Agree how decisions relate to the version that is ultimately approved.
A useful conversation
starts with real work.
Choose a representative task, record the baseline, and agree what a useful result must demonstrate.
Open the evaluation plannerBring to the conversation
- One existing procedure in its normal format
- The supporting site information and review requirements
- Known issues and a valid example for comparison
Measure in the evaluation
- Meaningful findings, missed issues, and false positives
- Time to reach an accepted review outcome
- Traceability of sources, decisions, and versions
The questions
behind the decision.
Get the details clear before committing to a rollout.
Security and deploymentPricing and scopeCan we review the procedures we already use?
Yes. Existing-procedure review is a core starting point. Test a representative file, its supporting site information, and the checks your engineers care about before expanding to a larger library.
What kinds of issues should we test for?
Start with equipment and document references, applicable revisions, dependencies, prerequisites, sequencing, and required recovery information. The demonstrated scope should be explicit; no generic score establishes that all hazards have been assessed.
What if the reviewer disagrees with a finding?
Inspect the cited evidence and the task context. The reviewer may request a correction, seek more information, or accept the concern with a reason. Demonstrate how that decision and its version are retained in your deployed workflow.
Is a reviewed procedure automatically approved?
No. Completing a software review, recording an engineer’s assessment, and authorizing work are separate events. The approval process should identify who can make each decision.
What happens when someone changes the procedure?
A decision applies to the version and information that were reviewed. Agree which edits require another review and how the approved record is kept distinct from a later draft.
How should we measure whether the review is good?
Use known issues and valid procedures. Measure meaningful findings, missed issues, false positives, the time to resolve them, and total effort to reach an acceptable result. A large flag count alone is not evidence of quality.
Existing-procedure review is a core workflow. Define the checks, approval roles, document formats, and revision handling for your deployment.
Bring a procedure
your team knows inside out.
Use the next conversation to inspect the findings, challenge the evidence, and decide what the review must prove.
We’ll agree how to share them if an evaluation follows.