Reviews and inspection evidence

Inspection evidence holds a file name, link, kind, upload date, uploader, parent record type and parent identifier. The kinds include specifications, drawings, contracts, inspection evidence, inspection reports and site photographs. A file should point to the exact project, package, task, milestone, issue, risk, timesheet or review it supports. The parent reference matters because a plausible file name alone does not tell a reviewer which site decision the document belongs to.

Submittal reviews record the subject type and reference, decision, date, reviewer, notes and related project. The decision can be Approved, Rejected or Returned. Inspection receipts capture the type of operation, subject reference, actor, time and result. They distinguish Succeeded, Failed and Pending outcomes. The configured RFI triage and timesheet approval workflows write receipts, giving the team a way to check the outcome of those operations.

• Attach to the source. Use the parent type and identifier when uploading a drawing or inspection photograph so the file can be found from the work record.
• Decide explicitly. A quality inspector records the reviewed subject and an Approved, Rejected or Returned decision with notes.
• Check the operation. Look at the receipt when triage or timesheet approval has been attempted, including a failed attempt that left the subject unchanged.

Agree the naming convention for source identifiers and how files are stored before their links are added. Decide which evidence kinds are required for the site’s key checkpoints and which reviewers may make decisions for each subject type. Set a convention for returned submittals so the person doing the work knows what to revise. Confirm how the review’s related project is selected when the subject reference is a task or milestone code.

Rehearse a file with the correct parent type but the wrong identifier. The team should catch that mismatch during review because the evidence record uses a typed label and a text identifier. Also rehearse a failed timesheet approval and an RFI triage attempt with missing severity; the receipts must be visible without turning either failure into an accepted decision.

A quality inspector receives a revised foundation drawing. They upload the file link as a Drawing against the intended site task and note its issue date. The inspector opens the related submittal review, checks the subject reference and records Returned with a reason because a detail is still unclear. The trade lead revises the work and submits a corrected drawing. The inspector records the next decision against the correct subject and project. The first decision remains a distinct record, so the team can see why the work changed.

A crew member then submits labour for that task. Submission triggers the approval workflow. The site manager checks the resulting entry, review decision and receipt to see what operation was carried out. If the hours had been zero, the failed receipt would explain why the entry stayed unapproved. A receipt is an execution outcome, while the attached drawing and review explain the technical decision.

• Submittal Decision Register — Reviewed subjects with the recorded decision, reviewer and project.
• Timesheets Awaiting Approval — Labour entries awaiting the separate approval action.
• Site Exception Triage — Fixed issues waiting for verification beside other site exceptions.

Review decisions and evidence follows files to a decision. Timesheet submission and approval shows how the approval receipt is produced.