How AIS™ Executes. Not What We Offer How We Work.

Every inspection firm lists what it inspects. Few explain how inspection decisions are made, how programs are structured, and what the records actually look like when the work is done. This page describes the AIS™execution model the approach that makes inspection programs defensible under audit, reliable at handover, and useful long after project closeout.

What Inspection Actually Means

Inspection is a judgment
function. Not a testing function.

A test produces data. An inspection produces a decision a defensible, documented determination that a component, weld, or system meets or does not meet the requirements of the applicable code, standard, or engineering specification. Those are different things. Most of what gets sold as inspection in the Basin is testing. AIS™ delivers the other kind.

The difference shows up in how programs are structured, how findings are classified, how acceptance decisions are made, and what the records look like when regulators, auditors, or investigators need to reconstruct what happened and why. AIS™ builds every engagement around that standard because that is the standard that matters when something goes wrong.

Step One

RBI & Scope Definition

What This Produces

Defined inspection scope per asset class

Applicable code & standard per system

Risk ranking & interval recommendations

Acceptance criteria before inspection begins

Hold point & notification requirements

Before Any Inspection Begins — The Program Is Defined

Risk-Based Planning & Scope Definition

Every AIS™ engagement begins with scope definition not with scheduling a technician. Where applicable, API 580 risk-based inspection methodology is applied first: consequence of failure and probability of degradation are assessed across the equipment population to determine what requires inspection, at what frequency, and at what level of rigor. This produces a program structure that allocates inspection resources based on actual risk not contract habit or uniform scheduling.

Standards interpretation follows. For each asset class in scope, the applicable governing standard is identified API 510 for pressure vessels, API 570 for process piping, API 653 for above-ground storage tanks and the inspection requirements, acceptance criteria, and documentation obligations under that standard are established before any field work begins. This is not done in the field. It is done at the program level, in writing, before the first inspection is conducted.

No assumptions are carried forward from previous projects. No scope is borrowed from the last engagement. Every program is scoped independently against the current assets, the applicable codes, and the owner's regulatory obligations as they stand at the start of this engagement.

Step Two

Standards Interpretation

What This Produces

Written inspection program per engagement

Code-based acceptance criteria per component

Hold point schedule & notification matrix

Inspection basis for in-service programs

Traceability from scope to field execution

Program Structure Set Before Field Execution Begins

Standards Interpretation & Program Structuring

Once scope is defined, the inspection program is structured against the applicable codes. This means determining in writing, before field work begins — which components require inspection at which intervals, what the acceptance criteria are for each defect type or degradation mechanism, and what the inspection hold points and required notifications are for each phase of work. These decisions are not made in the field under time pressure. They are made at the program level, where they can be reviewed, challenged, and defended.

For new construction and greenfield projects, program structuring includes identifying the applicable construction codes alongside the inspection standards ASME Section VIII for pressure vessels, ASME B31.3 for process piping, API 650 for tank construction and establishing the inspection requirements and documentation obligations under each. Weld inspection hold points, material verification requirements, and dimensional inspection checkpoints are defined before fabrication or installation begins.

For in-service programs, program structuring includes establishing the inspection basis the prior inspection history, known degradation mechanisms, current RBI risk ranking, and next inspection interval before any new inspection work is assigned. This ensures that each inspection cycle builds on the last in a documented, traceable way, rather than starting from scratch each time a new contractor is engaged.

Step Three

Independent Execution

Independence Means

No commercial relationship with the contractor under inspection

No deference to fabricator preference on acceptance decisions

Rejection records maintained independently

Hold points enforced not waived under schedule pressure

Findings reported to the owner, not filtered through the contractor

Separated From Fabrication, Repair, and Construction Contractors

Independent Inspection Execution

AIS™ inspection is conducted independently separated from the contractors, fabricators, and repair shops whose work is being inspected. This is not an administrative distinction. It determines whose interest the inspection judgment serves. When the inspector is independent, the acceptance decision reflects the code requirement. When the inspector is commercially aligned with the contractor, the acceptance decision reflects something else.

CWI-certified weld inspection is integrated directly into AIS™ mechanical integrity programs not subcontracted and not coordinated through the contractor. Hold points are enforced. Fit-up is inspected before welding begins. Weld procedure and welder qualification are verified against the applicable code before any production welding is accepted. Rejection decisions are made against the code not negotiated with the fabrication crew.

NDE methods phased array UT, digital RT, conventional UT, and others as required are applied where the program scope, applicable code, or risk profile requires them. They are not offered as a catalog, not upsold to expand scope, and not substituted for visual inspection when visual inspection is what the code requires. Personnel qualification is aligned with ASNT standards. Method selection is governed by the inspection program, not by equipment availability.

Step Four

Documentation Discipline

Every Record Includes

Asset identification and location reference

Inspection method and scope

Findings including absence of rejectable indications

Acceptance or rejection decision with documented basis

Inspector qualification and certification reference

Date, revision, and traceability to inspection program

Records Built for the People Who Will Need Them

Documentation Discipline & Traceability

The most common failure in mechanical integrity programs is not missed inspection it is missing documentation. Components get inspected, decisions get made, and the records end up in a contractor's file or a project closeout binder that no one can find three years later when a regulator asks or an incident investigation begins. AIS™ builds inspection documentation for the people who will use it after the project is over operators, engineers, regulators, and auditors not for the people who conducted the inspection.

Every inspection record produced by AIS™ includes the asset identification, applicable code and acceptance criteria, inspection method and findings, acceptance or rejection decision with basis, and the inspector's qualification and certification reference. Records are structured for traceability so that any finding can be traced from the inspection record back to the applicable code requirement, and any decision can be traced from the record forward to the disposition and repair, if applicable.

Documentation format is established at the program structuring stage, not improvised in the field. This ensures that records from the first inspection in a program are structured consistently with records from the last so that inspection history can be reconstructed, corrosion rates can be tracked, and interval compliance can be demonstrated without rebuilding the filing system from scratch each cycle.

Step Five

Deliverable Integrity

AIS™ does not operate as a rapid-response commodity testing provider. We deliver inspection programs designed to hold up under audit, handover, and regulatory review.

Inspection Records That Survive What Comes Next

Deliverable Integrity

The deliverable from an AIS™ inspection program is not a report that summarizes what was inspected. It is a set of records that can be handed to a regulator, reviewed by an owner's engineering team, or used as the basis for the next inspection cycle without requiring interpretation, reconstruction, or supplemental documentation from AIS™ or anyone else. The records stand on their own.

For new construction and greenfield projects, the final deliverable includes the complete inspection record from first weld through mechanical completion structured for integration into the owner's mechanical integrity program or asset management system. It is not a project closeout binder that gets archived and forgotten. It is the beginning of the asset's inspection history.

For in-service programs, the deliverable is an updated inspection record that can be added to the prior inspection history, used to update the RBI risk ranking, and presented to regulators or PSM auditors as evidence of a compliant, documented mechanical integrity program. Every record is formatted consistently with the prior cycle so that the program is continuous, not episodic.

Execution Model Applied

The same execution discipline applied to your project context.

The five-step model above applies across every engagement AIS takes on. Here is how it applies to each project type.

New Construction / Greenfield Inspection

Execution begins with construction code identification and weld inspection program structuring before fabrication starts. Hold points are defined, acceptance criteria are established, and CWI- certified weld inspection is integrated from first weld to mechanical completion. The final deliverable forms the foundation of the asset's in-service integrity program not a construction closeout archive.

Capital Project
Support

The same scope definition and program structuring discipline applied to major plant additions, compressor station builds, and tank battery installations. Inspection scope is defined before the first weld is made. Independent inspection is maintained throughout execution not brought in at the end to sign off on completed work. Deliverables are structured for integration into the facility's existing MI program.

Revamp & Brownfield Modifications

Requires interpreting both the construction code for new work and the applicable in-service inspection standard for existing assets being modified. AIS™ establishes the applicable requirements for each component in scope altered, repaired, or affected before modification work begins. Inspection judgment on repair and alteration acceptance is independent of the contractor performing the work.

Mechanical Integrity Programs

Ongoing MI program execution begins with the inspection basis prior history, current risk ranking, applicable code requirements before any new inspection cycle is assigned. Interval compliance is documented, findings are recorded consistently with prior cycles, and the program is structured to support both operator use and regulatory review without restructuring at each cycle.

Principal-Led · Vendor-Independent Accountable to the Standard

Independent inspection means one thing. The code is the client.

When AIS™ accepts an inspection engagement, the obligation is to the applicable code and to the owner not to the contractor who is being inspected, not to the project schedule, and not to the commercial relationship that brought the engagement in. Acceptance decisions are made against the standard. Rejection decisions are documented and reported. Hold points are enforced. That is what independent inspection means in practice.

Principal-led execution means the inspector responsible for program decisions is also responsible for the results of those decisions. There is no hand-off to a crew, no field supervisor interpreting instructions from a project manager, and no dilution of accountability through layers of subcontracting. AIS™ takes inspection assignments where it can deliver that accountability and declines engagements where the structure prevents it.

This is why AIS™ takes on a limited number of engagements. Not because of capacity. Because inspection accountability is not scalable through volume.

AIS™ does not operate as a rapid-response commodity testing provider. We deliver inspection programs designed to hold up under audit, handover, and regulatory review.