Record MT Examination Coverage and Sequence References

An MT report should identify the surfaces actually examined, not simply name the component and mark the method complete. A complex part can have several faces, transitions and accessible regions with different examination arrangements. Use the source scope and drawing references to describe the intended area, then preserve the actual execution and any limitations. The recipient should be able to distinguish an examination of selected weld surfaces from a statement about every surface of the entire assembly.

This worksheet is for documenting an examination under the applicable technical process. It does not select magnetizing current, establish shot spacing or determine that a particular arrangement provides adequate coverage. The responsible procedure and technical review supply those decisions. The report preparer makes the executed scope understandable and connects it with the actual supporting records. A generic completed checkbox is useful only when its defined meaning and evidence relationship are clear enough for the recipient to rely on it.

Use the actual drawing revision, part identifier and physical datum that identify the examined region. Labels such as front, rear or left can change meaning when a component is turned or installed. Define the viewing reference and preserve any zone map used by the examination team. If the report simplifies a detailed field sketch, keep the original relationship retrievable. A reader should not need to know how the component happened to sit on the workbench to understand which surface was examined.

For repeated parts, retain individual identity where required rather than assuming one representative sketch proves examination of the entire batch. The same arrangement may be used on several items, but each reported result needs the actual event relationship. Keep quantity, scope and result as separate concepts. A drawing showing all required zones is a planning reference; it does not establish that each zone was examined on every listed component or that any access limitation was resolved.

Identify the approved or reviewed arrangement used for the examination, including the relevant sequence reference where the project records it. Do not reduce the description to a product name if the result depends on a particular setup. A yoke, bench or other equipment label does not explain how the examination addressed the defined region. The report can use a concise reference to the controlling technique record rather than reproduce a set of unverified operating instructions.

TWI’s discussion of magnetic-field and discontinuity orientation explains why field direction matters to the method. For reporting, preserve the actual arrangement and its technical basis rather than treating contact with a magnetizing device as proof of coverage. This guide does not translate that general principle into a universal number of applications or a guarantee of detection. The component-specific procedure and responsible review establish the required examination approach.

Identify the equipment and relevant performance-check records required by the actual process. Keep those references distinct from the evidence showing which surfaces were examined. A satisfactory equipment check does not document the complete field sequence on a component. Conversely, a detailed coverage sketch does not replace the required equipment evidence. The report should connect both where applicable without allowing one completed record to stand in for the other.

Magnaflux’s magnetic-yoke FAQ discusses yoke performance checks as a separate equipment topic. Its product guidance is not a blanket project requirement or proof that a particular field setup was suitable. Record the actual check reference and the examination arrangement used on the job. Do not insert a generic lift-test value, interval or pass statement into the report unless the supporting record and applicable technical requirements establish it for that event.

Where the examination uses a documented sequence or zone plan, preserve which parts were completed and which remain unresolved. Use the actual sequence identifiers or a clear cross-reference to them. Do not estimate a coverage percentage from the number of completed steps unless the technical process defines that relationship. Different steps may address different surface extents or directions, so counting them as equal portions can produce a misleading summary of what the examination supports.

If a sequence was changed because of geometry, access or equipment arrangement, retain the reviewed change and affected region. A later report should not cite the original plan as though it was followed without modification. The worksheet makes the change visible but does not approve it. Record whether the alternative arrangement was accepted through the responsible process, whether additional work was performed and which scope question remains open. That is more actionable than a vague note that the examination was adjusted as necessary.

Record the surface-condition information required by the actual procedure and relevant to the interpretation. Distinguish the condition during examination from a later cleaned, coated or repaired state. A photograph taken after the work may help locate the component but may not establish what the examiner observed at the event. Preserve the source condition record and any stated limitation rather than assuming that the current appearance represents the earlier examination surface.

If part of the intended area was covered, obstructed or otherwise limited, describe the physical extent and the responsible disposition. Do not infer that examination through a particular coating or condition was acceptable from a generic method description. The actual technical basis determines what applies. The report should identify whether the affected area was examined under a reviewed arrangement, excluded pending further action or addressed by another documented event. Those states should not collapse into one unqualified completed label.

Where the process requires recorded viewing conditions or related checks, reference the actual evidence for the examination event. Do not fill a report field with the instrument’s specification or a value from another shift. The applicable technical procedure determines what needs to be measured and documented. The reporting task is to preserve the resulting evidence and identify any missing or conflicting record for review. A printed numerical value is not proof that a check occurred at the relevant location and time.

Keep the reported condition separate from the component result. A question about viewing conditions may require review of an examination’s validity without establishing whether the component contains a relevant indication. Use the responsible technical decision to describe the effect on the report. Avoid automatically converting a missing condition record into either a pass or a component rejection. The useful entry identifies the evidence gap, the affected scope and the actual follow-up required by the project process.

In a fictional inspection, a weld map divides the examination into zones A, B and C. The field record confirms the documented arrangement for A and B, while a temporary attachment prevents completion of the planned work in C. The draft report lists the weld as MT complete because two of the three zones were examined. A reviewer replaces that broad statement with the actual zone relationships and records C as a separate unresolved scope item. The completed work remains documented without hiding the outstanding boundary.

After the attachment is removed, a later event addresses C under its applicable reviewed arrangement. The report links that event to the original limitation and preserves the dates and evidence references. This hypothetical scenario does not prescribe zone sizes, field strengths or an acceptable fraction of coverage. It demonstrates how a surface-specific record supports a truthful completion statement and prevents a later examination from being silently represented as part of the earlier field event.

An indication map and a coverage map serve different purposes. The indication map locates reported observations; the coverage map explains where the examination was performed and any limits. An empty indication map does not prove that every intended surface was examined. Keep the actual scope statement and supporting sequence record available alongside the results. This is especially useful when the report contains only a few indication rows and the recipient might otherwise infer that all unlisted regions were fully assessed.

Use a stable physical reference for each reported indication and preserve the responsible classification or disposition. Do not infer a defect type from a formatting label or turn every recorded particle accumulation into a rejected condition. The interpreter’s actual review establishes the result. The reporting worksheet can link the observation to the examined region and evidence, but it does not classify indications or determine acceptance. Preserve unresolved interpretation questions separately from unfinished coverage so the next action remains clear.

A component examined after material removal or repair is not necessarily in the same condition as during the first event. Link the follow-up record to the repair or condition-change reference and the applicable examination scope. Do not overwrite the earlier result with the latest status if that removes the history needed by the client. The report should explain which region was re-examined and how the later decision relates to the previous indication or limitation.

Keep a repeat examination without a physical change distinguishable from examination after a repair. Both can produce another result for the same location, but their meanings differ. Use the actual source record rather than a generic retest label. Where the project requires a broader re-examination scope, preserve the responsible instruction and completion evidence. The worksheet does not decide the necessary extent; it makes the actual relationship visible so the recipient can understand what the follow-up did and did not establish.

A production report may summarize many similar components, but individual scope exceptions still need to remain retrievable. Identify the affected items and regions rather than placing a broad qualification in a note that cannot be connected to particular results. If one part was not available, one required further preparation and another had completed examination, those are different states. A batch total should preserve them instead of treating every item on the work order as an examined item.

When combining source tables, reconcile component identifiers and actual examination events before calculating totals. Do not assume that a list of planned parts matches the completed field record row for row. Separate quantity reconciliation from technical acceptance. The report can accurately state how many identified items have the required documented relationship while leaving specific technical questions open. That is more useful for scheduling and client review than a single percentage that mixes unavailable parts, incomplete documentation and evaluated results.

Use columns for component or zone, physical reference, arrangement or sequence, event evidence, limitation and disposition. Put longer explanations in numbered notes tied to the relevant rows. The digital reporting tool can hold the register and supported DOCX or XLSX table imports after preview. It does not determine magnetic coverage or verify field conditions. Its image fields are for company and client logos; reference examination sketches or photographs in the actual external package.

The equipment tracker can organize supporting equipment references, while the procedure draft workspace can help structure a draft for responsible technical review. Neither substitutes for the actual examination record. The MT yoke planning guide addresses broader technique context; this worksheet focuses on preserving the completed event and its boundaries. Keep those purposes distinct when selecting information to include in the final report.

Read the first-page scope statement alongside every unresolved zone or condition entry. Confirm that the conclusion does not imply completion beyond the supported evidence. A material limitation should remain visible where the recipient will use the result, not only in a distant attachment. If the wording is uncertain, obtain the responsible technical decision rather than replacing it with a more confident standard phrase. The report’s polished appearance should not make its claim broader than the examination actually supports.

Trace one completed region back to its event and arrangement record, then trace one exception to its actual follow-up or open action. Confirm that both relationships survive the final PDF layout and external package naming. The report buyer-review guide provides additional handover checks. For MT coverage, the practical question is whether the recipient can identify what was examined, under which documented arrangement, and what remains outside the supported completion statement.

When later work resolves a limitation, preserve the new event and the actual decision that closes the entry. Do not simply delete the exception and leave earlier recipients unable to reconcile the change. Follow the applicable report amendment process and identify the affected component or zone. A coverage register should describe the history accurately enough that a client can distinguish the original examination from subsequent work performed after access, condition or technical instructions changed.

Replace the worksheet’s fictional entries with real reviewed references. Keep the completed register with the report and supporting source package. Its value is a specific, retrievable description of the examination scope, not a promise of universal detection or a substitute for the approved method. The responsible technical process establishes the arrangement and result; the reporting record makes those decisions, the executed sequence and the remaining boundaries understandable to the people using the report.