Link PAUT Report Views to Scan Coverage Evidence

A screenshot can illustrate an indication or a coverage question, but it is not automatically a complete record of the PAUT examination. Identify the source data, acquisition event and selected view behind it. State why the view is included and what part of the examination it represents. Do not infer full weld coverage from one attractive image or from the presence of several familiar display types. The report should connect its presentation with the actual acquisition and reviewed scope.

Keep the native data and the report extract distinguishable in the delivery package. A selected image may omit other groups, scan positions or settings relevant to the reviewer’s question. The recipient needs a clear path back to the source when the project requires it. This guide focuses on that evidence relationship after acquisition. The PAUT scan-plan guide addresses broader preparation; the reporting worksheet helps preserve what the plan, actual scan and selected views each establish.

Record the applicable plan identifier and revision, including the component geometry and examination scope it addressed. A plan retained from an earlier job may resemble the current setup without representing it. Confirm its relationship to the acquired event through the actual technical process. If the plan changed during execution, preserve the affected event boundary and the authorized revision relationship. Do not cite the latest plan everywhere if some data was acquired under a different configuration.

Eddyfi’s discussion of T and Y joint inspection illustrates how joint geometry and access influence scan planning and interpretation. The practical reporting lesson is to retain the real geometry and access context. A manufacturer’s example does not guarantee coverage on another component. The report should reference the plan and the responsible assessment applicable to the actual examination rather than borrowing a generic illustration as proof that every required region was examined.

The scan plan describes the intended examination arrangement. The acquisition record describes what was actually recorded. Compare the two through the responsible review process and preserve any differences. A planned scan line does not prove that data exists along its full intended length, and an acquired file does not prove that every required volume was adequately examined. Record the actual extent and any limitation supplied by the technical review rather than treating the plan image as a completion certificate.

If an obstruction, setup change or interrupted scan affected the work, identify the relevant location and data boundary. Avoid a broad complete scan statement that hides the exception. A report can describe the acquired portions and the remaining question clearly without prescribing a remedy. The responsible technical process determines whether further acquisition, another approach or a different disposition is required. The worksheet’s role is to preserve the relationship between intention, execution and the evidence supporting the reported conclusion.

Identify each file or segment used for the reported result and explain how it relates to the component and scan coordinates. A long weld may be recorded in several files, while one file may contain several groups or views. Do not assume that a filename alone identifies the physical extent. Preserve the acquisition reference and the location mapping needed to join segments correctly. A restarted acquisition can create overlapping or repeated data that requires a clear interpretation of which records support the report.

Evident’s NDE file-format FAQ describes its structured acquisition-file format and distinguishes it from exported views. For this workflow, retain the original data relationship rather than treating a screenshot as equivalent to the underlying file. This does not mean that NDT Connect reads those native files. The reporting tool imports supported DOCX and XLSX tables only; native PAUT analysis remains in the appropriate examination software and responsible technical process.

Record the view type and the meaning of its axes where needed for interpretation. A scan-position axis, sound-path axis and depth representation do not communicate the same physical relationship. Preserve units, origin, direction and scanning-side context. A cropped image that removes those labels can leave a reviewer unable to locate the indication. Do not reconstruct missing axis meaning from the appearance of a familiar color pattern or assume every instrument export uses the same convention.

Connect displayed positions with the project’s physical datum. If the acquisition starts before the reporting origin or uses a recorded offset, preserve that relationship. When several views are correlated, identify how they refer to the same event or location. The report preparer should not merge coordinates from different origins simply because the values are similar. Keep the responsible correlation decision retrievable and preserve uncertainty where the available evidence does not establish a common physical reference.

A PAUT acquisition can contain several groups or configurations that address different parts of the examination. Record which group supports a selected result or screenshot and reference the applicable setup information. Do not describe one displayed group as the entire examination unless that is actually the supported scope. The report should make clear whether a view illustrates one part of a combined assessment or a complete defined record. A concise group reference can prevent substantial confusion during later review.

Keep the configuration evidence proportional to the recipient’s need and the project’s reporting requirements. A full setup record may remain in the external package while the report uses a stable reference. Do not copy an unreviewed list of every instrument setting into the report and assume that volume of detail proves adequacy. The responsible reviewer determines which parameters and records are needed to understand the examination. The reporting task is to preserve that relationship accurately and make the referenced evidence retrievable.

A selected view may use gates, cursors, zoom, display ranges or other analysis settings. Preserve the relevant context when it affects what the recipient sees. A color change or a selected region is not automatically a physical boundary or a technical disposition. State whether an annotation identifies an area of interest, a reviewed indication or another feature. Do not present a display treatment as raw evidence when the distinction matters to the interpretation.

Keep the original data available through the actual record process and identify the software or analysis reference where required. A later analyst may need to reproduce the view or examine information outside the selected region. The report image should help that work rather than replace it with an irreversible crop. If a display setting was changed during review, record the relationship to the reported result. Do not imply that the acquisition itself changed merely because the presentation was adjusted.

In a fictional weld examination, the acquisition is stored in segments S1, S2 and S3. A selected sectorial view from S2 illustrates indication I-4. The draft report includes that image and states that the weld was fully covered, but the source record shows an unresolved acquisition interruption in S3. The reviewer separates the two questions: the image’s relationship to I-4 and the examination’s overall coverage. A useful illustration of one indication does not resolve the missing evidence in another segment.

The report references I-4 to S2 and the applicable group, then records the S3 limitation with its location and next responsible action. Any later acquisition receives a separate event relationship. This example is hypothetical and sets no required scan increment, overlap or coverage percentage. It demonstrates why the report’s selected views and its overall scope conclusion need separate evidence checks, even when the images look coherent and the intended scan plan shows the entire weld.

An area without a displayed response can have several meanings depending on the data and view. It may be outside the selected display, outside the acquired extent or subject to another limitation. Do not equate an empty-looking region with a reviewed absence of reportable indications. The responsible analyst must establish what the data supports. Preserve the relevant state and the evidence reference in the report, particularly where a screenshot could otherwise lead the recipient to assume uninterrupted coverage.

If the source record identifies a data-quality or acquisition concern, describe the affected region and review outcome accurately. Avoid a vague note that the scan was acceptable unless the actual assessment supports that statement. The reporting worksheet does not establish acceptance thresholds for missing data or signal quality. It helps document the real decision, including any additional evidence or unresolved boundary. A report should not convert a presentation gap into a technical result simply to make a coverage summary look complete.

Segments may overlap or a location may be rescanned. Preserve the relationship so repeated records are not counted as additional physical coverage. Identify the controlling or complementary evidence through the responsible review process. A later segment may supplement an earlier one, replace a defined unsupported portion or provide another view. Do not select the most visually appealing segment and discard the others without a record of why it supports the report.

Where the location mapping between segments is uncertain, retain that question rather than forcing the data into a continuous-looking summary. A small apparent alignment difference may concern the datum, encoder relationship or actual acquisition position. The report preparer should not diagnose the cause from file order alone. Record the evidence needed to establish the relationship and the responsible decision. This preserves the distinction between a continuous planned path and a supported continuous examination record.

A reviewed indication can have a documented disposition while another part of the examination remains incomplete. Conversely, a supported coverage assessment does not automatically mean every indication has been evaluated. Use separate references or states where those questions differ. Do not allow a favorable result for one indication to become a global statement about the weld. The report’s conclusion should identify the actual scope of the evaluation and preserve any remaining coverage or interpretation limitations.

If several methods contribute to the final assessment, explain the relationship through the applicable reviewed records. Do not claim that one supplementary examination automatically resolves every limitation in the PAUT data. The responsible technical process determines what each method establishes. The procedure draft workspace can help organize proposed reporting responsibilities, but it does not approve a combined examination strategy or determine that the available evidence satisfies the project’s requirements.

The free digital reporting workspace can hold the reviewed indication table, coverage-reference matrix and explanatory notes. Its company and client image fields are logo fields, not native PAUT data or examination-image attachments. Keep the selected views and source files in the agreed external package and identify them clearly in the report. Do not tell the recipient that the PDF includes data that is only referenced or that the app has analyzed the acquisition.

The equipment tracker can organize instrument and probe records used as supporting references. Those records do not establish the acquired coverage or validate a scan plan. Preserve the actual event configuration and technical review evidence. A useful report combines concise readable conclusions with a reliable path to the detailed sources, rather than embedding every setting or claiming that a generic equipment record proves how the particular examination was performed.

Start with a view reference in the PDF and locate the intended external file. Confirm that the filename, package version and selected group or event can be identified. Then check the reverse direction from a delivered image or segment to its report relationship. This exposes orphan screenshots, missing segments and ambiguous duplicate filenames. A package can contain every file yet still be difficult to use if the report does not explain how the records relate to the component and conclusions.

Read the report’s overall scope statement alongside the exception matrix. Confirm that interrupted, inaccessible or unresolved regions remain visible. The report buyer-review guide provides wider delivery checks. For PAUT views, the practical question is whether another qualified reviewer can distinguish the selected presentation, the underlying acquisition and the supported coverage conclusion without inferring one from the appearance of another.

A report image set containing only clearly resolved indications can leave the recipient with an incomplete impression of the examination. Where an unresolved region or acquisition limitation materially affects the conclusion, identify the relevant supporting view or record as well. Do not select an image merely because it is visually impressive. Choose the presentation that helps the qualified recipient understand the actual question, with the required axes and context intact. The purpose is an intelligible evidence trail, not a gallery that makes the dataset appear more complete or more conclusive than the responsible review established.

A later review may generate a new selected view from the same source data, or a follow-up may produce new acquisition. Record which occurred. Reprocessing or changing the display does not create new physical examination coverage, while a new scan needs its own event context. If a report changes, preserve the source relationship and follow the applicable amendment process. Do not overwrite the previous image reference in a way that makes a later view appear to have been part of the original delivery.

Use the worksheet below to connect plan, segment, group, view and physical extent. Replace the fictional entries with actual reviewed references. The completed record should explain what each image helps establish and what evidence supports the larger coverage statement. That makes selected PAUT views useful for review and communication while preserving the limits of the data, the actual scope of the examination and the separate responsibility for technical interpretation.