Prepare an ILI Dig Verification Correlation Record

Identify the selected inline-inspection call and the actual purpose of field verification. The task may concern feature classification, reported dimensions, location correspondence or another defined question. Do not treat every excavation as the same validation exercise. Preserve the operator’s instruction and the specific evidence requested. A complete field report should show how the work addresses that question without assuming that any nearby measurement automatically verifies the selected ILI result.

This worksheet organizes the correspondence between supplied ILI information and actual local examination evidence. It does not select excavation sites, prescribe operating pressure, authorize excavation or assess remaining strength. Those decisions require the responsible technical and operational processes. Keep their actual instructions and decisions referenced in the package, while using the workpaper to make the location and evidence relationships understandable to the people reviewing the result.

Record the pipeline designation, ILI run identifier, reporting version and call identifier. A feature number may be unique only within one run or report issue. Do not combine a revised call list with an earlier location sheet without checking their relationship. Preserve the actual vendor or operator nomenclature rather than shortening labels until they collide. The field result needs a stable reference to the specific reported item it is intended to verify.

If the ILI interpretation changes during the verification campaign, retain the original selection basis and the revised information as separate versions. The field team may have worked from a valid earlier issue. A later report should explain the change rather than suggesting the team used the new information throughout. Keep the effective instruction and any responsible reassessment retrievable so the verification history remains intelligible after the call list has been updated.

ROSEN’s field-verification service description distinguishes checking reported classification and dimensions in the field. That context supports recording the original call and actual local findings separately. Do not overwrite the ILI classification with the field conclusion, because the comparison then loses its purpose. Preserve the terminology and limitations supplied by each process, together with the responsible interpretation of any difference.

An ILI indication, an exposed physical feature and a local NDT result are related pieces of evidence, not automatically interchangeable labels. A field observation may support a revised classification or reveal that the initial correspondence is uncertain. Record that outcome accurately. The report preparer should not force the records to agree merely to produce a closed row or call a result false before the location and technical relationships have been reviewed.

Preserve the actual reference features used to locate the selected call, such as identified girth welds and the defined axial and circumferential references in the work package. State the direction and origin used by each source. A distance from an upstream weld is not self-explanatory if the direction convention or weld identity is unclear. The correlation record should make the route from the ILI reference to the exposed area reproducible.

Keep the original reported location and the verified field location distinguishable. If an adjustment is established, record its basis and scope rather than silently changing the ILI value. An adjustment that resolves one local relationship may not apply to an entire run. The responsible technical process determines its applicability. The worksheet preserves the actual conclusion without deriving a global correction from a single excavated feature.

Identify the physical extent made available for the examination and the limitations reported by the field team. Do not assume that the selected feature’s full area was exposed merely because the planned dig was completed. A local measurement at an accessible portion may leave another part unresolved. Keep the examination scope distinct from the excavation work-order status, and state any relevant obstruction or inaccessible area in the actual report.

This is a record of authorized work, not guidance for entering or enlarging an excavation. Where additional access is needed, preserve the responsible request and decision through the project process. Do not convert an access limitation into a satisfactory result or omit the affected area from the final conclusion. The recipient needs to know what evidence was obtained and what remains outside the supported scope of the field verification.

Use the actual combination of location, geometry and other relevant observations reviewed by the responsible team to establish correspondence. Similar depth values alone do not prove that a field feature is the selected ILI call. Conversely, a dimensional difference does not prove the location is wrong. Keep the feature-matching decision and its evidence separate from the subsequent comparison of reported dimensions. This prevents circular reasoning in which a match is accepted only because the numbers agree.

Where several nearby features could correspond to the call, retain the ambiguity until the responsible review resolves it. Identify the candidates and the evidence distinguishing them rather than assigning the first visible feature to the selected row. A precise-looking comparison table is misleading if the physical match remains uncertain. The workpaper should allow a qualified or unresolved correspondence status without forcing a binary verified result.

Record the reported quantity, units, datum and actual measurement definition for both ILI and field results. A depth expressed relative to a reference wall is not automatically comparable with a directly reported remaining thickness. A feature length can depend on the defined boundary or grouping basis. Do not convert or compare values until the responsible process establishes that their meanings are compatible. Retain the reviewed conversion basis where a conversion is actually used.

Avoid adding precision that the source evidence does not support. A spreadsheet conversion can generate extra decimal places without improving the measurement. Keep the actual uncertainty or qualification supplied by the ILI and field processes. The worksheet does not establish sizing tolerance or calculate tool performance. It preserves the information needed for the responsible analyst to assess the comparison without losing the original measurement terms.

An ILI call may represent a grouped region while the local examination records several individual features, or the reverse. Preserve the actual grouping relationship rather than forcing one row on each side. Use a cross-reference table when one selected call relates to multiple field entries. The comparison should state which quantities apply to individual features and which apply to a group, so a maximum or combined extent is not mistaken for every member’s dimensions.

Do not create interaction rules or merge features solely to simplify the report. The responsible assessment determines the applicable grouping and its technical implications. Keep the raw field identities retrievable even where the final assessment uses a grouped representation. This makes later review possible if the ILI interpretation changes or another analyst needs to understand exactly which local measurements contributed to the reported verification result.

In a fictional verification package, ILI call C18 is referenced to girth weld G7. The field team records two features near the exposed area. A draft table assigns the first measured feature to C18 because its reported depth is similar. Review of the actual location references shows that the second feature is the supported correspondence. The corrected record retains both field observations and explains the match, rather than deleting the first observation or changing the ILI location without evidence.

The dimensional comparison is then made only for the reviewed relationship, with the actual measurement meanings preserved. This hypothetical example provides no digging instruction, tolerance, acceptance criterion or assessment formula. It demonstrates that matching the physical feature is a separate evidentiary step. A close numerical agreement at the wrong location is not successful verification, and a legitimate unmatched observation can still require its own responsible review.

Record any relevant preparation, material removal or repair that occurred before a particular local measurement. A result obtained after a physical change describes a different state from the original ILI acquisition or initial field observation. Preserve the event sequence and actual technical interpretation of its effect. Do not replace the original condition with a later value in a way that suggests both describe the unchanged feature.

Where the field process includes several examination stages, identify which result is used for which comparison. An initial characterization, an intermediate check and a final repair examination have different purposes. Keep their source references separate even if they share one work package. The correlation record should not use the most favorable later value as the original verification measurement unless the responsible analysis explicitly supports that use.

If the selected call cannot be confidently correlated, record what was checked and what remains uncertain. Do not label it absent merely because the first accessible area did not reveal the expected feature. The responsible review determines further action from the actual evidence. The report should distinguish a verified absence under a defined examination scope from an unresolved location question, limited access or insufficient measurement capability.

Unexpected field findings also need their own identities and disposition references. Do not discard them because they were outside the original call list or automatically assign them to the nearest selected call. Preserve the actual observation and responsible notification or assessment record. The verification worksheet can link these findings to the broader package while maintaining the difference between verifying a known call and documenting additional evidence discovered during the field work.

A single correlated feature provides evidence for the specific comparison made. It does not automatically establish the performance of an entire ILI run, every feature class or every dimension. PHMSA’s integrity-management overview places integrity assessments within broader operator programs. Use the operator’s actual validation and assessment process to determine how individual field records contribute; do not claim a run-wide conclusion from a completed worksheet row.

Where the responsible analyst combines multiple verification records, preserve the dataset version and inclusion decisions. A field record excluded from a particular analysis may still be important evidence and should not disappear from the dossier. The report should identify the actual conclusion and its scope rather than reproduce a broad passed label whose basis cannot be retrieved. NDT Connect does not calculate validation statistics or certify ILI performance.

A successful feature match does not by itself establish whether repair is required, what repair is suitable or whether operation can continue. Preserve the responsible engineering assessment and work instruction as separate references. Likewise, completion of a repair does not resolve an unexplained ILI-to-field difference unless the actual review addresses it. The dossier should retain both the physical work history and the analytical conclusion without allowing one to stand in for the other.

Use status wording that states the achieved step. Location correlated, field characterization complete, comparison reviewed and action closed are different states. A document issued in the reporting workspace is only an issued document. It is not an operator authorization, technical signature or regulatory determination. Keeping those distinctions visible helps the next team act on the correct record rather than infer authority from a neatly formatted PDF.

The digital reporting workspace can hold the call-to-field crosswalk, reviewed dimensions and limitations. Import supported DOCX or XLSX tables after checking their contents. The workspace does not parse native ILI, laser-scan or ultrasonic datasets, match features automatically or calculate remaining strength. Keep those files and examination images in the agreed external package, with precise text references. Logo fields are not a substitute for a technical-image attachment system.

The equipment tracker organizes entered instrument references, and the procedure draft tool can structure proposed reporting responsibilities for review. Use the quote comparison tool for actual supplier scopes and exclusions, including required field data. The MFL pipeline guide provides wider context. None of these tools establishes the physical correspondence or technical conclusion on the user’s behalf.

Keep the ILI acquisition date and local examination date visible. The two records describe observations made at different times, potentially under different conditions. Do not automatically attribute every dimensional difference to tool error or physical growth. Preserve any documented intervening maintenance, preparation or other relevant event and the responsible interpretation. If no information is available about the interval, leave that limitation explicit rather than asserting the condition remained unchanged.

A later analyst may use the pair for a purpose beyond the original verification. Clear dates and condition history help prevent that reuse from treating the records as simultaneous measurements. The worksheet should retain the actual time relationship without calculating a growth rate from two values whose comparability and physical meaning have not been established.

Start with a selected ILI call and trace it to the actual field feature, measurement records and responsible comparison. Then start with a field result and trace it back to its selected call or additional-finding status. Check that one field feature has not been inadvertently used to close two unrelated calls. Confirm that unresolved matches, changed conditions and excluded comparisons remain visible in the conclusion rather than only in a working spreadsheet.

Replace the fictional worksheet row with actual reviewed evidence and use the report buyer-review guide for broader delivery checks. A useful verification record explains exactly what has been correlated and what remains uncertain. It preserves the distinction between a measured local feature, an ILI interpretation and an engineering decision, without claiming that a successful document handover independently verifies pipeline integrity.